U.S. Department of Education

Office of Grants Administration

2020 Grantee Satisfaction Survey

Final Report

December 2020
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Customer Satisfaction Model.................................................................................................................9

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

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

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

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

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

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

Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education (OCTAE)............................................................... 32

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

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

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) ................................................................... 47

Contact Information....................................................................................................... 64

Appendix A: Questionnaire .......................................................................................... 65

Appendix B: Attribute Tables and Non-Scored Responses........................................ 149

Appendix C: Verbatim Responses by Program.......................................................... 347

Appendix D: Explanation of Significant Difference Scores......................................... 749
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 2

Chapter I

Introduction and Methodology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Segment Choice

A total of 70 programs participated in the 2020 Grantee Satisfaction Survey for the U.S. Department of 

Education. This represents a much larger surveyed population compared to previous waves that have 

typically included 30-35 programs. Many of the participating programs survey their grantees each year 

while others cycle in periodically. 

Data Collection

Each of the 70 participating programs provided a list of grantees to be contacted for the survey. Data 

collection took place from September 21 to November 20, 2020 through e-mail invitations that directed 

respondents to an online survey. The survey timeline in 2020 was pushed back to later in the year due to 

the pandemic. The survey is typically fielded in the late spring, which this year coincided with the timing of 

nationwide in-person school shutdowns and a large migration to remote working. This, along with myriad 

other special circumstances brought on by the pandemic made it prudent to delay the fielding of the 

survey to the fall. 

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

completed the survey and phone call reminders were also placed. A total of 2,408 valid responses were 

collected for a response rate of 51%. Response rates by program are shown on the following pages.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 3

Response Rates by Program

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

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

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

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

satisfaction and performance ratings provided by many grantees. 

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

Program Invites Completes Response 

Rate ACSI

21st Century Community Learning Centers 63 49 78% 80

Adult Education and Family Literacy to State Directors of Adult Education 57 41 72% 81

Alaska Native Education Program 42 32 76% 72

Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions (ANNH)-Part A 36 23 64% 77

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions (AANAPISI) 26 23 88% 73

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors 53 25 47% 80

Childcare Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) 200 110 55% 81

College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) - Migrant Education 54 42 78% 87

Comprehensive Literacy State Development (formerly Striving Readers) 21 14 67% 79

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects for Indian Children 94 52 55% 77

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions (DHSI) 200 110 55% 78

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Grants for State and Local Activities/ 

McKinney-Vento Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program 55 29 53% 85

Education Innovation and Research Program--Expansion Grants/Mid Phase 

Grants/Early Phase Grants 95 44 46% 74

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III, Part A) 52 26 50% 63

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships 200 92 46% 83

Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP -

State) 26 16 62% 64

GEAR UP-Partnerships 79 44 56% 79

Graduate Assistance in in Areas of National Need (GAANN) 88 52 59% 86

Grants for State Assessments 52 29 56% 76

High School Equivalency Program (HEP) - Migrant Education 50 39 78% 88

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies & National Activities 200 72 36% 77

Innovative Approaches to Literacy 43 31 72% 88

Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program/Javits Gifted and 

Talented Students Education Act 38 30 79% 69

Magnet Schools Assistance Program 45 33 73% 79

Mental Health Demonstration Grants 27 19 70% 78

Migrant Education Program (MEP) -- Title I, Part C 46 34 74% 78

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program (MSEIP) 83 29 35% 84

National Professional Development Program 90 51 57% 80

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program 17 15 88% 85

Native American Career and Technical Education 31 20 65% 76

Native Hawaiian Education Act Program/Education of Native Hawaiian 35 24 69% 82

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local 52 24 46% 77

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002) 200 96 48% 84

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) 200 100 50% 78

Project Prevent 15 15 100% 85
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 4

Program Invites Completes Response 

Rate ACSI

Promise neighborhoods (ESEA IV-F-2, section 4624) 14 12 86% 79

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program 78 31 40% 60

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

Program 

49 33 67% 77

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

(SRSA) 200 53 27% 83

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEAs) 69 53 77% 82

Strengthening Institutions Program (SIP) 200 107 54% 75

Student Support and Academic Enrichment/Title IVA (National Activities) 53 36 68% 75

Student Support Services (SSS) 200 110 55% 73

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program 25 18 72% 57

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (Title II, Part A) 53 26 49% 58

Upward Bound (UB) 200 98 49% 73

Overall 3,806 2,062 54%
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 5

Table 2: All other programs surveyed

Program Invites Completes Response 

Rate ACSI

American Overseas Research Centers 18 11 61% 89

Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination 22 13 59% 72

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

Schools 58 18 31% 71

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Fellowships 39 15 38% 71

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

State Entities 34 17 50% 48

Full-service community schools (ESEA IV-F-2, section 4625) 41 18 44% 79

Group Projects Abroad 55 21 38% 86

IDEA – Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program 61 22 36% 74

IDEA – State Directors of Special Education (Part B) 61 23 38% 71

IDEA National Centers (added 12/13/19) 34 11 32% 78

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies 53 21 40% 64

Language Resource Centers 15 7 47% 86

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions (NASNTI) 19 12 63% 83

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education 4 2 50% 78

Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) 42 15 36% 86

Promoting Post Baccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans (PPOHA) 32 15 47% 86

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program 51 12 24% 68

Immediate Aid to Restart School Operations (Restart) Program 10 5 50% 81

School Climate Transformation Grants (SEAs) 21 11 52% 83

Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) 11 8 73% 83

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) 97 26 27% 82

Teacher and school leader incentive grants (ESEA II-B-1) 28 14 50% 75

Teacher Quality Partnership Program 68 21 31% 82

Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCU)-Part A 35 8 23% 90

Overall 909 346 38%

Questionnaire and Reporting

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

has been reviewed annually. In 2020, changes were made that include the introduction of sections 

dedicated to measuring attributes of the grantee experience related to their grant reporting requirements 

and technical assistance.

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

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

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

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

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

they worked, as identified by the sample.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 6

Chapter II

Survey Results

Customer Satisfaction

The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) is a weighted average of three questions: Q40, 

Q41 and Q42, 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 (Q40); 

satisfaction compared to expectations (Q41); and satisfaction compared to an ‘ideal’ organization (Q42). 

The 2020 Customer Satisfaction Index for the Department of Education grantees is 78, 4 points

higher than the 2019 measurement and its highest rating at the aggregate level.

Customer Satisfaction Index: 2006 – 2020
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 7

Satisfaction Benchmarks

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

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

government average. The satisfaction of the 2020 Grantee Satisfaction Survey is rated 10 points higher 

than the Federal Government Average and compares favorably to several similar programs that measure 

satisfaction among government program grantees.

84

78

78

73

70

68

68

60

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

Department of Education - Grantee

Satisfaction Study

Health Resources and Services

Administration (HRSA) Bureau of Primary

Health Care (BPHC) Grantees

Department of Energy - Weatherization

Assistance Program Grantees

Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of

Community Services, Low Income Home

Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)

Federal Government Average

Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of

Community Services, Community Economic

Development (CED) Grantees

Administration for Children and Families

(ACF), Office of Community Services,

Community Services Block Grant (CSBG)

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 8

Customer Satisfaction Index - Scores by Program

The chart below lists the 2020 ACSI score for all 70 participating programs. Satisfaction ranges from 48 to 

90 at the individual program level.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 9

Customer Satisfaction Model

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

are the topic of the rest of this chapter.

To the right of Customer Satisfaction in the model is Trust. This metric, added to the questionnaire in 

2019, is considered an “outcome” of customer satisfaction. Its score is measured independently from 

satisfaction or any driver. The score of 85 for Trust is a 4-point improvement from its already impressive 

debut score a year ago and demonstrates the high level of confidence that grantees have in the efforts of 

their grant’s sponsoring office. 

2020 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 Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 10

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

component score for Documents.

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

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

points (81 to 86), the Customer Satisfaction Index would increase by the amount of its impact, 0.9 points, 

(from 78 to 78.9). 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 Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 11

Drivers of Customer Satisfaction

Technical Assistance

Impact 1.2

The 2020 questionnaire re-introduced a section dedicated to measuring aspects of the Technical 

Assistance grantees receive. Unlike in previous years, the Technical Assistance battery of questions was 

asked of nearly all program respondents and included additional attributes as well as a free response 

open-ended question.

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

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

strong 82, indicating that on the whole, technical assistance is being applied in an effective way that 

meets the needs of grantees. Additional questions were then asked directly measuring the program staff 

providing technical assistance. At the aggregate level, enhancing staff skills necessary for successful 

program management was the highest rated metric in this area with an overall rating of 79. Using 

evidence-based practices in implementing program activities and creating opportunities to share best 

practices via learning groups were not far behind, each with a score of 78. Assistance with developing 

resource materials for program use was a few points behind at 75.

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

provider such as regional laboratories or comprehensive centers. The 14% of all respondents who said 

they do receive such support rated the helpfulness in learning to implement their grant project of this EDfunded support at an exceptional 87.

Technical Assistance is a critical aspect of the grantee experience. Not only is it essential in helping 

grantees implement the mission of their grant project but the 2020 data model reveals that this 

component has a higher degree of influence on grantee satisfaction than any other. The good news is 

that the initial Technical Assistance scores are all rated very favorably. Further improvements will be 

attained through building on current strengths, looking for incremental opportunities to deliver meaningful 

assistance and prioritizing knowledge sharing across grant programs and various projects.

Technical Assistance - Aggregate Scores

2020

Scores

Technical Assistance 79

TA services provided in helping successfully implement grant programs/projects 82

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program management 79

Using evidence-based practices in implementing program activities 78

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in the program 75

Creating opportunities to share best practices via learning groups 78

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to implement grant project 87

Sample Size 2,026
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 12

Technical Assistance scores range from 40 to 94. Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter 

Schools score the lowest in 2020 while Predominantly Black Institutions and grantees of the Language 

Resource Centers rated the Technical Assistance they receive the highest. 

This particular year carried unique challenges of finding ways to provide meaningful assistance without inperson conferences and training sessions. Grantees were appreciative of virtual sessions that were held 

where possible. Looking ahead, promote knowledge sharing amongst the program staff that are 

conducting technical assistance webinars and other virtual based gatherings to explore what is working 

well and what can be improved. In general, grantees are appreciative of increased interaction so to the 

extent possible, ensure that program staff are reaching out to grantees even in the absence of formal 

training sessions to provide opportunities for questions to be answered in order to maintain these strong 

ratings. 

Technical Assistance - Scores by Program

Program (Technical Assistance) Score

Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) 94

Language Resource Centers 94

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program 93

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships program 92

Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need Program 91

Group Projects Abroad program 91

American Overseas Research Centers program 90

Comprehensive Literacy State Development 90

College Assistance Migrant Program 90

Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program 88

School Climate Transformation Grants (SEAs) program 88

Mental Health Demonstration Grants program 88

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions Program 87

High School Equivalency Program - Migrant Education 86

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) program 85

National Professional Development Program 85

Project Prevent 85

21st Century Community Learning Centers 85

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions 84

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program 84

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEAs) program 84

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program 84

Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) program 84

Immediate Aid to Restart School Operations 84

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) Program 83

Teacher Quality Partnership Program 83

Grants for State Assessments 83

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors 83

IDEA National Centers Program 83

Magnet Schools Assistance Program 82

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs 82

Native Hawaiian Education Act Program/Education of Native Hawaiian 81

Teacher and school leader incentive grants (ESEA II-B-1) 81

Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination Program 81

Promise Neighborhoods 80

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

Student Support and Academic Enrichment 80

IDEA – Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program 80

GEAR UP - Partnerships 79
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 13

Program (Technical Assistance) Score

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C) 79

Full-service community schools (ESEA IV-F-2, section 4625) program 78

Charter Schools Program Grants to State Entities 78

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans Program 77

REAP-Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) Program 77

Alaska Native Education Program 77

Strengthening Institutions Program 76

Child Care Access Means Parents in School 75

Student Support Services 75

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) 75

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies Program 75

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects for Indian Children 75

IDEA – State Directors of Special Education (Part B) Program 75

Education Innovation and Research Programs 75

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions Program 74

Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions (ANNH)-Part A program 73

Upward Bound 73

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program 72

Native American Career and Technical Education Program 70

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies Program 69

Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCU)-Part A program 68

Javits Program 68

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (Title II, Part A) 68

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

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program 64

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program 61

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program 61

GEAR UP - State 60

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools 40

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002) --

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) --

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 14

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements

Impact 1.1

A new section of the questionnaire dedicated to measuring grantee perceptions of the Grant Performance 

Reporting Requirements was added to the survey in 2020. Respondents were asked to think about the 

Annual Performance Report or the Consolidated State Performance Report, where applicable, when 

rating the reporting attributes. The overall rating of 78 in this area is a strong debut, especially considering 

the relatively high impact of this component. There is more variation across the individual attributes within 

this area that most other satisfaction drivers. The highest individual rating of 81 comes from the ease of 

submitting reports electronically. This high score indicates no real need to enhance this area unless clear 

and obvious improvements are possible without any significant associated costs. The availability of 

assistance when completing reports and the clarity of the reporting requirements were each rated a 78, 

followed by a score of 76 for the usefulness of the reporting data in helping improve the grant program or 

project. Having reliable assistance available for a variety of topics is essential to the grantee experience 

and guidance in report submission is no exception. Most programs are doing a fine job of having staff 

ready and willing to help in this regard, but program-level results should be examined to ensure that this 

is not a blind spot. Any score below 70 for the availability of assistance would indicate a need to shore up 

this area with dedicated staff easily accessible to grantees for help with completing performance reports.

The lowest rated Grant Performance Reporting Requirements attributes at the aggregate level are the 

ease of obtaining data required for reporting (74) and the understanding of how ED uses the submitted 

data/reports (68). For most programs, these areas present the greatest opportunity for improving the 

reporting requirements driver and boosting overall satisfaction. 

A common appeal in the open-ended feedback was for additional time to prepare annual reporting, which 

could be achieved by moving the planning meetings ahead in the year. Another opportunity for improved 

efficiency in this area would be the alignment of reporting dates to the academic calendar or outlining the 

year’s reporting deadlines well in advance so that grantees have ample time to prepare. Finally, ED staff 

should prioritize providing feedback on how submitted data is used by the Department. Along with the 

relatively low score, many grantees commented on how they would appreciate a better understanding of 

how their submitted data is used given the substantial time spent on completing the reports. 

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements - Aggregate Scores

2020

Scores

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements 76

Clarity of reporting requirements 78

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report 74

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically 81

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) 78

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant program/project 76

Your understanding of how ED uses your data 68

Sample Size 2,138
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 15

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

program level is 52 points. The pandemic has certainly added a degree of difficulty in submitting reports 

in a timely fashion that may not affect every program the same way, leading to the wide gap seen here. 

For the majority of programs, opportunities for improvement lie in better communicating how submitted 

data is used and creating clear timelines for reporting well in advance. 

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements - Scores by Program

Program (Grant Performance Reporting Requirements) Score

College Assistance Migrant Program 92

High School Equivalency Program - Migrant Education 91

School Climate Transformation Grants (SEAs) program 85

Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) program 84

Teacher Quality Partnership Program 84

Magnet Schools Assistance Program 84

Project Prevent 83

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors 83

Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program 83

Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need Program 83

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEAs) program 82

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program 82

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) Program 82

Comprehensive Literacy State Development 82

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans Program 82

Grants for State Assessments 81

Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination Program 81

21st Century Community Learning Centers 81

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program 81

Teacher and school leader incentive grants (ESEA II-B-1) 81

American Overseas Research Centers program 81

Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) 81

Group Projects Abroad program 81

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

Language Resource Centers program 80

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) program 80

IDEA National Centers Program 79

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program 79

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program 79

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs 78

Student Support Services 78

Native Hawaiian Education Act Program/Education of Native Hawaiian 77

National Professional Development Program 77

Mental Health Demonstration Grants program 77

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies Program 77

Immediate Aid to Restart School Operations 76

REAP-Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) Program 76

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C) 76

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions 76

Child Care Access Means Parents in School 75

Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions (ANNH)-Part A program 75

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions Program 75

Upward Bound 75

Promise Neighborhoods 74

Charter Schools Program Grants to State Entities 74

Education Innovation and Research Programs 74
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 16

Program (Grant Performance Reporting Requirements) Score

IDEA – State Directors of Special Education (Part B) Program 74

Alaska Native Education Program 73

IDEA – Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program 73

GEAR UP - Partnerships 73

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions Program 73

Full-service community schools (ESEA IV-F-2, section 4625) program 71

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships program 71

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects for Indian Children 70

Strengthening Institutions Program 70

Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCU)-Part A program 69

Javits Program 68

Native American Career and Technical Education Program 68

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) 66

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program 65

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III, Part A) 65

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program 65

Student Support and Academic Enrichment 64

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies Program 63

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (Title II, Part A) 61

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program 52

GEAR UP - State 52

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools 40

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002) --

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) --

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 17

ED Staff/Coordination

Impact 1.0

The ED Staff/Coordination driver improved 5 points in 2020, driving it to an exceptional rating of 87. This 

driver has historically been among the highest performing components of the grantee experience 

measured by the survey and a key strength of the Department. The professionalism of federal staff, an 

attribute added to this year’s survey, was rated a 93, the single highest rated item on the entire core 

survey. Significant improvements were had for several aspects of the ED Staff/Coordination driver, 

including 6-point increases for staff knowledge and consistency of responses across different program 

offices. This is a particularly impressive result in the year where a pandemic has created unprecedented 

circumstances, shifting policies and new legislation. ED staff have been an invaluable resource for 

grantees in helping guide them through a tumultuous environment and should be commended for their 

important management in an extremely difficult situation.

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

maintain the strong partnerships federal staff have forged with grantees. 

ED Staff/Coordination - Aggregate Scores

2019

Scores

2020

Scores

Difference Significant 

Difference

ED Staff/Coordination 82 87 5 ↑

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and 

procedures 83 89 6 ↑

Responsiveness to your questions 80 84 4 ↑

Professionalism -- 93 --

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 82 85 3 ↑

Communication about changes that may affect your program -- 85 --

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 80 86 6 ↑

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in providing 

relevant services 80 84 4 ↑

Sample Size 1,406 2,354

Arrows indicate a statistically significant difference from 2019 scores at 90 percent level of confidence.

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 18

All but two programs rated the ED Staff/Coordination component at a 75 or above this year, with 30 of the 

70 participating programs achieving a score in the 90s. These widespread strong scores are evidence of 

positive collaboration among program staff, learning from each other and developing best practices in 

terms of the guidance provided to grantees. 

ED Staff/Coordination - Scores by Program

Program (ED Staff/Coordination) Score

American Overseas Research Centers program 97

Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) program 97

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships program 96

Language Resource Centers program 95

Project Prevent 95

Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) 95

Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need Program 95

Group Projects Abroad program 95

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program 94

College Assistance Migrant Program 93

High School Equivalency Program - Migrant Education 93

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEAs) program 93

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program 93

Native Hawaiian Education Act Program/Education of Native Hawaiian 93

Promise Neighborhoods 93

Immediate Aid to Restart School Operations 93

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors 93

Teacher Quality Partnership Program 92

National Professional Development Program 92

Grants for State Assessments 92

IDEA National Centers Program 92

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002) 91

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) program 91

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program 91

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) Program 91

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions Program 91

Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program 90

Comprehensive Literacy State Development 90

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

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

Mental Health Demonstration Grants program 89

Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination Program 89

GEAR UP - Partnerships 89

School Climate Transformation Grants (SEAs) program 88

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) 88

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions 88

Strengthening Institutions Program 88

Magnet Schools Assistance Program 87

Full-service community schools (ESEA IV-F-2, section 4625) program 87

Charter Schools Program Grants to State Entities 87

Child Care Access Means Parents in School 87

21st Century Community Learning Centers 87

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies Program 86

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program 85

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans Program 85

Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCU)-Part A program 85
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 19

Program (ED Staff/Coordination) Score

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C) 85

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

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) 85

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions Program 85

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program 85

Alaska Native Education Program 84

Education Innovation and Research Programs 84

Javits Program 83

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs 83

IDEA – Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program 83

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

Student Support and Academic Enrichment 82

Native American Career and Technical Education Program 82

Teacher and school leader incentive grants (ESEA II-B-1) 81

Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions (ANNH)-Part A program 81

GEAR UP - State 80

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III, Part A) 79

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies Program 79

Student Support Services 78

Upward Bound 77

IDEA – State Directors of Special Education (Part B) Program 77

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program 75

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program 68

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools 56
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 20

Documents

Impact 0.9

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

gained 4 points this year to an overall rating of 81. Each of its five individual attributes experienced a 

significant increase. The correspondence sent to grantees is well organized (83), clear (82) and relevant 

to the areas of grantee needs (82). The sufficiency of detail improved greatly, adding 5 points to a 2020 

score of 81. The comprehensiveness of the documentation in addressing the scope of issues grantees 

face lags behind the other metrics slightly but like the others, increased significantly in 2020 to a rating of 

79. As with the ED Staff/Coordination component, there is no clear aspect of the Documents driver that 

needs special attention in terms of improvement efforts. Individual programs can examine their specific 

scores to identify any particular items where they lag behind the survey’s averages but in general, 

documentation can be considered another highlight of the grantee experience. Note that Office of 

Postsecondary Education respondents were not asked the questions in the Documents section of the 

questionnaire.

Documents - Aggregate Scores

2019

Scores

2020

Scores Difference Significant Difference

Documents 77 81 4 ↑

Clarity 77 82 5 ↑

Organization of information 78 83 5 ↑

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 76 81 5 ↑

Relevance to your areas of need 79 82 3 ↑

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 75 79 4 ↑

Sample Size 938 1,387 1 ↑

Arrows indicate a statistically significant difference from 2019 scores at 90 percent level of confidence.

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

On the next page are the Documents scores by program, ranging from 50 to 91. While most programs 

have correspondence in place that is meeting the needs of grantees, some of the open-ended feedback 

suggested that more correspondence would be helpful, particularly via email. Sending regular updates 

from a consistent source keeps grantees informed of current events and adds a layer of engagement with 

the Department.

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 Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 21

Documents - Scores by Program

Program (Documents) Score

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program 91

Comprehensive Literacy State Development 91

College Assistance Migrant Program 91

National Professional Development Program 90

High School Equivalency Program - Migrant Education 90

Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program 89

Project Prevent 89

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program 88

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C) 87

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002) 87

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEAs) program 87

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) Program 86

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program 86

Teacher Quality Partnership Program 86

Native Hawaiian Education Act Program/Education of Native Hawaiian 86

Magnet Schools Assistance Program 85

REAP-Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) Program 85

Full-service community schools (ESEA IV-F-2, section 4625) program 85

Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) program 85

Grants for State Assessments 84

Promise Neighborhoods 84

School Climate Transformation Grants (SEAs) program 84

Teacher and school leader incentive grants (ESEA II-B-1) 83

Mental Health Demonstration Grants program 83

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors 82

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) 82

Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination Program 82

IDEA National Centers Program 81

Immediate Aid to Restart School Operations 81

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies Program 81

REAP-Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program 81

Student Support and Academic Enrichment 80

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies Program 79

21st Century Community Learning Centers 79

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects for Indian Children 78

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program 76

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III, Part A) 76

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs 76

Native American Career and Technical Education Program 75

Alaska Native Education Program 75

IDEA – State Directors of Special Education (Part B) Program 74

Charter Schools Program Grants to State Entities 74

IDEA – Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program 73

Education Innovation and Research Programs 72

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program 71

Javits Program 69

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

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program 59

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools 50

GEAR UP - State --

GEAR UP - Partnerships --
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 22

Program (Documents) Score

Child Care Access Means Parents in School --

Strengthening Institutions Program --

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

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program --

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions --

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans Program --

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

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions Program --

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions Program --

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

Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) --

Student Support Services --

Upward Bound --

Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need Program --

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships program --

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) --

American Overseas Research Centers program --

GEAR UP - State --

GEAR UP - Partnerships --

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey 

2020 23

Online Resources 

Impact 0.5 

After a 5-point decline in 2019, the Online Resources rating rebounded this year, gaining 7 points to rise 

to 75. This section of the questionnaire specifically asks respondents to rate the Online Resources of their 

program’s content on the ED.gov (or OESE.ED.gov) website. Some programs with separate external 

websites asked for feedback of those resources within their custom question section of the questionnaire, 

with those results reported in Appendix B. The quality of content on the site (77) was new to the survey 

this year and had the highest component score, followed by the accuracy of search results (76). Search 

result ratings often lag behind other website metrics, so this positive initial score demonstrates that the 

built-in search engine is generally meeting the needs of grantees. 

The ease of finding materials, ability to accomplish the goal of visiting the site, and ease of navigation are 

all rated a 75 this year, all significantly improved from a year ago. The look and feel of the site is rated a 

74 – a positive score albeit slightly lower than the other website attributes. The newly designed 

OESE.ED.gov website is at the top of the office-level ratings for the Look and feel/Visual appearance 

rating, with each Office’s results shown below for comparison. 

Look and feel/Visual appearance scores by Office 

• OESE: 77 

• OELA: 77 

• OPE: 71 

• OCTAE: 71 

• OSERS: 65 

 

Online Resources - Aggregate Scores 

2019 

Scores 

2020

Scores Difference 

81

Significant 

Difference 

Online Resources 68 75 7 ↑

Ease of finding materials online 67 75 8 ↑

Quality of content -- 77 -- 

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 68 75 7 ↑

Accuracy of search results -- 76 -- 

Ease of navigation 68 75 7 ↑

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- 74 -- 

Sample Size 1,392 2,194 

Arrows indicate a statistically significant difference from 2019 scores at 90 percent level of confidence. 

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 24

Online Resources scores range from 51 to 94. Programs at the lower end of the spectrum are 

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

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

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

be found in Appendix C of this report.

Online Resources - Scores by Program

Program (Online Resources) Score

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program 94

Language Resource Centers program 89

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program 88

Teacher and school leader incentive grants (ESEA II-B-1) 88

American Overseas Research Centers program 87

School Climate Transformation Grants (SEAs) program 86

Project Prevent 85

Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) 84

Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program 84

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002) 83

College Assistance Migrant Program 83

High School Equivalency Program - Migrant Education 83

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEAs) program 83

Teacher Quality Partnership Program 83

Magnet Schools Assistance Program 83

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans Program 82

Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need Program 81

Comprehensive Literacy State Development 80

Mental Health Demonstration Grants program 80

National Professional Development Program 80

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program 80

Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination Program 80

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) 79

Group Projects Abroad program 79

Native Hawaiian Education Act Program/Education of Native Hawaiian 79

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies Program 79

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) program 78

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program 78

Promise Neighborhoods 78

REAP-Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program 78

Full-service community schools (ESEA IV-F-2, section 4625) program 78

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

Immediate Aid to Restart School Operations 77

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors 77

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions 76

Grants for State Assessments 76

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

IDEA National Centers Program 75

Upward Bound 75

Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCU)-Part A program 75

Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) program 74

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C) 74

Strengthening Institutions Program 74

Charter Schools Program Grants to State Entities 73

Child Care Access Means Parents in School 73

Student Support Services 73
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 25

Program (Online Resources) Score

Javits Program 73

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships program 72

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) Program 72

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs 72

GEAR UP - Partnerships 72

Alaska Native Education Program 72

21st Century Community Learning Centers 71

Student Support and Academic Enrichment 71

Education Innovation and Research Programs 71

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects for Indian Children 70

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III, Part A) 70

Native American Career and Technical Education Program 69

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) 67

IDEA – Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program 66

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions Program 66

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program 66

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions Program 65

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program 65

IDEA – State Directors of Special Education (Part B) Program 64

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies Program 61

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program 61

GEAR UP - State 60

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools 56

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (Title II, Part A) 51
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report 

Grantee Satisfaction Survey 

2020 26

Information in Application Package 

 

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

the information in the application package. After a significant increase in 2019, this component’s score 

gained another point in 2020 to reach a new high of 88. The individual attributes measured were mostly 

consistent year-over-year, with the only statistically significant increase being a 2-point improvement in 

how easy it was for grantees to find and understand information regarding selection criteria. 

Information in Application Package - Aggregate Scores 

2019 

Scores 

2020

Scores Difference 

81

Significant 

Difference 

Information in Application Package 87 88 1

Program Purpose 88 89 1 

Program Priorities 88 88 0 

Selection Criteria 85 87 2 ↑

Review Process 82 84 2 

Budget Information and Forms 82 84 2 

Deadline for Submission 91 91 0 

Dollar Limit on Awards 88 88 0 

Page Limitation Instructions 87 88 1 

Formatting Instructions 85 86 1 

Program Contact 90 91 1 

Sample Size 414 802

Arrows indicate a statistically significant difference from 2019 scores at 90 percent level of confidence. 

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 27

At the program level, the ratings of the Information in the Application Packages ranged from 78 for GEAR 

UP-State to 95 for the American Overseas Research Centers program.

Information in Application Package - Scores by Program

Program (Information in Application Package) Score

American Overseas Research Centers program 95

Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) 94

Language Resource Centers program 93

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program 93

Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need Program 91

Group Projects Abroad program 91

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) program 90

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions 90

Child Care Access Means Parents in School 90

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans Program 90

Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions (ANNH)-Part A program 90

GEAR UP - Partnerships 89

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) 87

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions Program 87

Student Support Services 87

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships program 86

Strengthening Institutions Program 86

Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCU)-Part A program 84

Upward Bound 84

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions Program 81

GEAR UP - State 78

Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) program --

Project Prevent --

College Assistance Migrant Program --

High School Equivalency Program - Migrant Education --

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEAs) program --

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program --

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

Promise Neighborhoods --

Immediate Aid to Restart School Operations --

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

Teacher Quality Partnership Program --

National Professional Development Program --

Grants for State Assessments --

IDEA National Centers Program --

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002) --

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program --

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

Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program --

Comprehensive Literacy State Development --

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

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

Mental Health Demonstration Grants program --

Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination Program --

School Climate Transformation Grants (SEAs) program --

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) --

Magnet Schools Assistance Program --

Full-service community schools (ESEA IV-F-2, section 4625) program --
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 28

Program (Information in Application Package) Score

Charter Schools Program Grants to State Entities --

21st Century Community Learning Centers --

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies Program --

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program --

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

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

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program --

Alaska Native Education Program --

Education Innovation and Research Programs --

Javits Program --

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs --

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

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

Student Support and Academic Enrichment --

Native American Career and Technical Education Program --

Teacher and school leader incentive grants (ESEA II-B-1) --

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

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies Program --

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

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program --

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program --

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools --

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 29

Satisfaction Benchmark 

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

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

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

responded ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly Agree’. This includes 47% of grantees who fall into the ‘Strongly Agree’ 

category, which represents a notable 10 percentage point improvement in this most satisfied category.

The percentage of respondents saying they “Disagree” or “Strongly Disagree” with being satisfied with the 

ED’s products and services fell to just 7%.

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

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 30

Chapter III

Summary and Recommendations

The overall ACSI score of 78 marks the highest level of grantee satisfaction recorded by the survey since 

its inception in 2007. The 4-point improvement since last year is the largest year-over-year change in

satisfaction since 2010 and continues a positive upward trend in satisfaction since 2015. In order to 

identify key opportunities for continued improvement, components of the program experience that are 

associated with relatively lower scores coupled with higher impacts should be considered key action 

areas, as improvements in these aspects are likely to yield relatively greater increases in the overall level 

of satisfaction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

achieve since performance is already at a high level.

Performance and Impact of Driver Areas

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

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

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

point improvement in that area. 

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

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

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

Areas quadrant of the priority matrix.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 31

Key Action Areas

The newly added Grant Performance Reporting Requirements driver was found to have a relatively high 

impact on satisfaction while being rated lower than most other aspects of the grantee experience. In 

looking for opportunities to improve this score, and therefore elevate satisfaction to even higher levels, 

there are a couple of key themes from the survey results that offer suggestions for where the greatest 

opportunities lie. The first is prioritizing a deliberate effort to provide feedback to grantees after their 

reports have been submitted. Understand how ED uses submitted data was rated notably lower than the 

other metrics within the reporting component and open-ended feedback affirms that there is a desire from 

grantees to know more about how the data in their reports are used. Improving communication in this 

regard gives grantees an opportunity to learn more about the full process and could create efficiencies in 

how the reports are compiled and organized in future cycles.

The second opportunity to improve the annual reporting process is uncovered by the grantee comments. 

When asked how the reporting process could be improved, many grantees across all offices noted that 

the earlier dissemination of reporting deadlines that better align with academic calendars would be 

helpful. In some cases, grantees commented on having tight timelines which impact the quality of their 

reports. Grantees would benefit from knowing at the beginning of the year when reports will need to be 

submitted so they can allot the proper amount of time to the compilation of the necessary data while 

working around normal schedules of the academic calendar.

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

satisfaction. With a strong score of 79 at the aggregate level, improvements in this area are likely to be 

more incremental, taking advantage of smaller opportunities that could turn good experiences into great 

ones or finding areas that could be improved at the program level. One common theme from the openended comments that can be applied to many aspects of the grantee experience, but especially for how 

Technical Assistance is utilized, is enhanced knowledge sharing. Many grantees voiced their desire to 

connect with individuals from other programs to share and learn best practices. Federal program staff and 

other Technical Assistance providers could benefit from the same by connecting at regular intervals to 

present how they are using technology to help grantees implement their grants and staying connected 

throughout the year.

Monitor

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

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

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

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

Grantees have rated this area much higher this year, informing ED that recent improvement efforts to 

freshen the website content and improve its usability have been successful. 

Maintain

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

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

the established strong performance. The Documents driver appears near the very center of the priority 

matrix. At the aggregate level, the written correspondence provided to grantees meets their needs and is 

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

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

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

component in lieu of the Documents set of questions presented to grantees of the other Offices.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 32

Results by Program

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

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

verbatim comments are provided in the appendix of this report.

Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA)

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program

The Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program satisfaction increased 9 points over 

the last year to land at 85 in the 2020 survey. This impressive rating puts this program’s satisfaction level 

near the very top of all 70 programs surveyed this year. This program’s response rate continues to be 

near perfect, with 15 of 17 invited grantees completing the survey. The strong ratings provided by these 

grantees are not limited to satisfaction. The ED Staff/Coordination component, measuring interactions 

with federal staff from the program’s office, was rated a 91. With all specific attributes rating these 

interactions scored at 87 or above, there are no apparent weaknesses in these interactions at this time. 

The Online Resources available specifically on the ED.gov website were rated a 78, which relatively 

speaking is lower than all other components measured for this program. However, this score is up 11 

points from the 2019 survey, indicating positive change in being able to find materials online and 

ultimately accomplish the intended goals of logging on to ED.gov. New questions were added to this 

section in 2020, including the quality of content (78), accuracy of search results (77) and the look and feel 

of the site (74). With each of these scoring in the mid- to upper-70s, grantees’ needs are largely being 

met in this area. However, attention should continue to be paid on keeping the site’s content up-to-date 

and intuitive to users in order to maintain or even enhance the perceptions of the website going forward. 

Custom questions asked only on OELA grantees reveal consistent ratings of the OELA and NCELA 

websites among this program’s respondents. The usefulness of the OELA Facebook page improved 5 

points year-over-year but remains the lowest scoring attribute for this program with a rating of 58.

National Professional Development Program

Satisfaction among National Professional Development Program grantees remains very strong with a 

score of 80, which represents a single point decline from a year ago. Interactions with federal staff are 

optimal, with an ED Staff/Coordination score of 92. Particular bright spots include ED staff knowledge of 

relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures (96) and the professionalism (94) of the staff. 

Online Resources specific to this program’s content on the ED.gov website improved 7 points to 80, 

boosted by improvements in the ease of being able to find materials online (+7), the ease of navigation 

(+9) and the ability to accomplish tasks on the site (+7). The accuracy of search results (79) and visual 

appearance of the site (78) debuted with very strong ratings, bolstering the positive overall Online 

Resources rating. New questions were added to the survey asking grantees about reporting 

requirements. This component’s initial overall rating is a 77 among NPD grantees. A closer look at the 

attributes comprising this score show relative strengths and opportunities for improvement. High scores of 

82 were given for the availability of assistance in completing reports and the usefulness of data helping 

improve the grant program. In looking for ways to further improve the reporting requirements aspect of the 

grantee experience, look to improve the communication with grantees in terms of how ED uses the data 

provided, as this attribute was rated a 65. All metrics related to the Technical Assistance provided to NPD 

grantees received very high scores, with the highest rating ascribed to ED-funded technical assistance 

providers in helping grantees learn to implement their grant (93). The widespread positive feedback from 

NPD grantees shows a high level of satisfaction in just about all areas of the grantee experience. 

Program leadership should focus on maintaining the high level of service and guidance being provided 

while looking for opportunities to make incremental changes that could further enhance the interactions 

between grantees and the Department. 

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

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

Grantees of the Adult Education and Family Literacy program rated their satisfaction an 81. This is a 5-

point improvement from a year ago and the highest ever satisfaction score for this program. All major 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 33

components of the grantee experience were rated very high in 2020, ranging from scores of 72 for Online 

Resources to 91 for ED Staff/Coordination. While the Online Resources score, which measures the 

program content available on ED.gov, increased 4 points from last year’s survey, it is still rated slightly 

lower than 2018’s score of 75. In looking for ways to provide an even better experience for grantees on 

the ED.gov site, the focus should be on the visual appearance of the site and making it easier to find 

materials online. Each of these attributes was rated a 69 in this year’s survey. New questions related to 

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements were added to the 2020 questionnaire, with this program’s 

grantees rating this area an 82 overall. While all specific attributes of the reporting requirements block 

receive strong ratings, the ease of obtaining data grantees are required to report offers the most room for 

improvement with a rating of 69. Custom questions asked only of this program’s grantees asked about 

the ease of using the web-based National Reporting System (NRS) to report state performance data. This 

attribute was rated an 83, an increase of 7 points from last year. The usefulness of the training offered by 

OCTAE to support the NRS was rated an 81, up 2 points from last year’s survey. Additional results of the 

custom questions asked of this program’s grantees can be found in Appendix B of this report.

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

Technical Ed

Carl D. Perkins Career & Technical Education Program grantee satisfaction improved 2 points to an 

overall rating of 80. CTE grantees rated their interactions with federal staff exceptionally high, with an 

overall score of 93. The support from federal staff who work with this program has been consistently 

exemplary, with the grantee feedback signaling no need for any significant changes in this area. The only 

component score that declined from last year is Online Resources, falling 3 points to 77. While still a very 

strong score, attention could be paid to the visual appearance and ease of navigating the site, with each 

of these attributes rated a 75. Last year, the lowest scoring item on the survey among CTE grantees was 

the comprehensiveness of the written communication in addressing the scope of issues grantees faced. 

In 2020, this score jumped 7 points to 79, indicating efforts to make the correspondence more 

comprehensive and applicable to grantee issues paid off and made a positive difference. Grant 

Performance Reporting Requirements received a strong initial rating of 83, with particularly strong 

performance in the availability of assistance in helping grantees complete their reports. In looking for 

ways to further improve the reporting requirements area, there is relatively more room for improvement in 

the grantees’ ease of obtaining data required to report and providing a better understanding to grantees in 

terms of how ED is using the data submitted. The Technical Assistance received by CTE grantees also 

received a positive overall rating of 83. The technical assistance services provided do a great job of 

helping grantees successfully implement their grant. Assistance with developing resource materials for 

use in the program offers the greatest room for improvement among the specific attributes related to 

Technical Assistance with a score of 73.

Native American Career and Technical Education Program

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

Career and Technical Education Program rated their satisfaction a 76 on the 0-100 scale. Of the core 

grantee experience components rated by respondents, ED Staff/Coordination received the highest score 

of 82. This measure of interactions with federal staff saw extremely high scores for the staff’s 

professionalism (92) and collaboration with other ED programs in providing services (92). Further 

improvements to the ED Staff/Coordination component are likely to come as a result of enhanced 

responsiveness to questions, as this was this area’s lowest rated attribute with a score of 70. The Online 

Resources of the program’s content on the ED.gov website was rated a 69; 6 points below the aggregate 

rating among all programs surveyed. Improving the accuracy of search results and ease of navigation 

present the greatest opportunities to strengthen the Online Resources rating. The Technical Assistance 

provided by program staff and/or OCTAE in general received an overall rating of 70. Grantees rated the 

program staff’s technical assistance in helping them learn how to implement their grant program at an 

impressive score of 80. There is room for improvement to be had in creating opportunities to share best 

practices via learning groups (51). A highlight of the survey results specific to this program’s feedback is 

the exceptional Trust score of 91. This measure of the degree of trust grantees have that OCTAE is 

dedicated to work with them in meeting their organization’s needs. Ratings of additional custom questions 

asked of this program’s grantees can be found in Appendix B of this report.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 34

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program grantees rated their satisfaction a 78. This 

strong positive result shows that despite its small size in terms of number of grantees, te support received 

by this program is well received. Federal staff interactions are a strength, with an ED Staff/ Coordination 

score of 85. Likewise, the Online Resources (94) and Documents (91), which measures the written 

correspondence sent to grantees are meeting or surpassing grantee expectations. Grant Performance 

Reporting Requirements are rated an overall 81, with the top scores in this area coming for the clarity of 

the reporting requirements (89) and the ease of submitting reports electronically (89). There is an 

opportunity to better communicate how ED uses the data submitted by grantees (56). The Technical 

Assistance component was rated a 72. Scores are mostly consistent in this area but there is relatively 

more room for improvement in using evidence-based practices in implementing program activities (67) 

and creating opportunities to share best practices via learning groups (67). In the custom section of the 

questionnaire, grantees of this program rated the usefulness of PCRN an 83. The usefulness and 

relevance of project director meetings in providing technical assistance was rated particularly high at 94. 

The strong debut for this program shows grantees needs’ largely being met, continuing to measure 

grantee satisfaction while pushing for increased participation in future surveys will give program staff a 

more complete picture of this program’s grantee experience.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 35

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS)

IDEA – State Directors of Special Education (Part B)

For the second consecutive year, State Directors of Special Education rated their satisfaction a 71, 

keeping it at the upper end of this program’s historical average. The ED Staff/Coordination score, 

measuring interactions between grantees and federal staff, was rated a 77 – down 7 points from last 

year’s survey. While still a strong score, ensure that program staff supporting these grantees are 

equipped with the most current information to provide grantees with knowledgeable and timely responses 

to questions related to relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures. The collaboration with 

other ED programs or offices in providing services rating fell 12 points to a score of 69 and is down from a 

high of 90 in 2018. To the extent possible, use collaboration with other programs to identify best practices 

and good ideas toward implementing the grant program. The Online Resources component was rated a 

64; unchanged from a year ago. Open-ended grantee feedback suggested that program content on the 

ED.gov website be sorted with clear major topic areas leading to drop-down menus that make it easier to 

navigate to sought after content more efficiently. The quality of content (71) received the highest score 

related to the website. New questions related to Grant Performance Reporting Requirements were added 

to the 2020 questionnaire. Overall, this program’s respondents rated the reporting requirements 

component a 74, a slight 2 points lower than the average among all programs surveyed. The availability 

of assistance in completing the reports (79) was the highest rated attribute in this area, while helping 

grantees understand how their submitted data is being used (69) presents the greatest room for 

improvement. Ratings of additional custom questions asked of this program’s grantees regarding the 

assistance they receive from OSEP staff can be found in Appendix B of this report.

IDEA – Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program

Satisfaction among Lead Agency Early Intervention Coordinators improved 5 points to set a new record 

high (74) for this program. Interactions with federal staff, measured by the ED Staff/Coordination 

component improved 1 point to 83. The professionalism of program staff was rated an exceptional 91. 

There were slight declines in the scores for sufficiency of legal guidance (-3) and responsiveness to 

questions (-3). While these scores remain strong, ensuring that program staff prioritize prompt responses 

to grantees and ensuring that questions regarding legal matters are answered clearly and completely will 

help buttress the overall quality of these interactions and drive this key component score higher. The 

Online Resources specific to the program content on ED.gov is another opportunity to drive overall 

satisfaction higher. With an unchanged score of 66, Online Resources is the lowest component score 

from the survey, with particular opportunities in enhancing the ease of navigation (62) and the general 

look and feel of the site (62). The quality of content (76) is the highest rated attribute related to Online 

Resources, illustrating that grantees are less likely to be critical of the website content itself than the path 

taken to find it. The Technical Assistance provided to grantees is a strength, with an overall rating of 80, a 

point higher than the aggregate rating. In the custom question section of the survey, the majority of 

grantees (68%) indicated they receive technical assistance support from their state lead monthly. The 

remainder (32%) said they receive this assistance only quarterly. For nearly all metrics measured on the 

survey, those who receive assistance monthly provided notably higher ratings than those receiving 

assistance on a less frequent basis.

IDEA National Centers Program

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

satisfaction a 78 on a 0-100 scale. All driver scores, which are the key components of the grantee 

experience that ultimately impact overall satisfaction scored very well. ED Staff/Coordination, a measure 

of the interactions grantees have with federal staff from the program office was rated an exceptional 92. 

The knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations policies and procedures (99), professionalism of the 

staff (96) and sufficiency of legal guidance in responses (96) all received nearly perfect marks. The 

Technical Assistance component was rated an 83, providing strong evidence that technical assistance 

services are successfully helping grantees implement their grant program. The Documents driver, 

measuring the written correspondence provided to grantees, was rated an 81, on par with the aggregate 

average. The correspondence is rated particularly high for its relevance to grantees’ areas of need (85) 

and the organization of the information (83). Grant Performance Reporting Requirements were rated a 

79, again with high marks for clarity (87) and also the ability of assistance when completing reports (89). 

In looking for opportunities for improvement, respondents were less clear about how ED uses the data 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 36

they submit, with this attribute rated a 62. Online Resources, specifically the program content available on 

the ED.gov website, has a strong score of 75 but does rank behind the other drivers in this initial 

measurement. Enhancements to the Online Resources is most likely to occur through improvement in the 

visual appearance of the site (73) or the ease of navigation (74). Usage of the various web-based 

resources available to these grantees were measured in the custom question section of the survey. On a 

scale where 0 means never and 100 means very frequently, the Department’s IDEAS website’s usage 

was 70, the IDEAS That Work website is used less with a rating of 62 and the osep.grads.org website 

used even less frequently with a rating of 50. 

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program

After its initial year of survey participation in 2019, RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program satisfaction 

jumped 11 points, from 49 to 60. This substantial increase was driven by improvements in all driver 

scores and solid debut scores in newly added survey components. The ED Staff/Coordination rating rose 

11 points to 75. After responsiveness was identified as an area of opportunity last year, program staff 

have stepped up and grantees have noticed. The responsiveness to questions rating improved from 59 a 

year ago to 72 in this year’s survey. Complementing the improved responsiveness is the extreme 

professionalism of the staff, rated a 90 in its debut on the questionnaire. The written correspondence 

provided to grantees is measured by the Documents driver, which gained 11 points to a score of 71. The 

correspondence is rated particularly well for its topical relevance (77) and the organization of the 

information (76). Opportunity still exists in the correspondence’s clarity (68) and sufficiency of detail (67), 

though these attributes have improved greatly from a year ago. The Online Resources on the ED.gov 

website are rated better this year with a score of 61. While up 8 points from the 2019 survey, this area still 

lags behind the others. The highest marks in this area come from the visual appearance of the site (63) 

and quality of content (63), while the lowest website-based score is 57 for the ease of finding materials 

online. Ensure that frequently sought after material is easy to find without the need to navigate through 

multiple web pages. Two new components added to the survey this year, Grant Performance Reporting 

Requirements (65) and Technical Assistance (64), were rated relatively well in their initial measurements. 

A priority for improving the reporting process should be making it easier to obtain the data needed by 

grantees to report. In the area of Technical Assistance, look for ways to use evidence-based practices in

implementing program activities, as this was the lowest rated TA attribute at 59. The 2020 survey results 

for this program should be welcome news that policies and procedures put into place this year to better 

serve grantees in ways that enhance their ability to implement their grants has succeeded, and with a 

continued effort can raise satisfaction higher.

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program

The Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program grantee satisfaction was rated a 68 in the initial year of 

participation in the Grantee Satisfaction Survey. The satisfaction score of 68 is equal to the average 

satisfaction rating of all OSERS programs that participated in the study. There are five driver sections in 

the survey that measure the key components of the grantee experience. The driver scores were wideranging for grantees of the RLTT Program with Technical Assistance being rated the lowest at 61, and 

ED Staff/Coordination leading the pack with an overall score of 85. The individual survey attributes that 

comprise the ED Staff/Coordination driver highlight the effectiveness of federal staff in their interactions 

with grantees. Scores were especially high for ED Staff’s Professionalism (96) and their communication 

about changes that may affect the grantees program (86). The Online Resources survey section asks 

grantees to evaluate the content specific to their program that is made available to them on the ED.gov 

website, to which grantees of the Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program provided a score of 66. A 

closer look at the attribute-level scores within the Online Resources driver section informs on the specific 

elements of the website that offer the greatest opportunity for improvement. The ease of finding materials 

online (63) and ability to accomplish what you want on the site (62) attribute scores indicate that 

adjustments/updates should be made to the ED.gov website resources that are made available to 

grantees of this program. The first step in developing a strategy to improve the scores and thus the 

grantee experience is to investigate the most common resources that grantees of the RLTT Program visit 

the ED.gov website to obtain. One respondent left the following comment when asked how the 

Department could improve its website, “I just don't feel it is user friendly, not very intuitive. For a first-time

grant manager, I think I spend too much time looking for what I need.” A full read-out of the verbatim 

feedback collected can be found in Appendix C. Technical Assistance, the lowest scoring driver of

satisfaction, was rated a 61. Low scores of 56 were provided for creating opportunities to share best 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 37

practices via learning groups and using evidence-based practices in implementing program activities. 

Grantees of this program may stand to have a better overall experience if efforts are made by program 

staff to schedule learning group sessions in which grantees can collaborate with one another. In the 

custom questions section of the survey 58% of RLTT grantees indicated that they would like RSA staff to 

provide statutory and regulatory program requirements training. 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 38

Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE)

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions

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

rated a 78, a slight 1-point dip in satisfaction since 2019. When asked to evaluate the Information in 

Application Package, grantees indicated a strong driver score of 90 (2-point improvement from 2019). In 

addition, the attributes that comprise the Information in Application Package driver received positive 

scores ranging from 85 to 94. The high scores of 85+ indicate that the various elements of information in 

the application package were easy for grantees to locate and understand. The next highest scoring driver 

of satisfaction is ED Staff/Coordination with an overall score of 88. This 4-point increase since 2019 is 

due in part to the significant score increases for knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures (92, +7) and consistency of responses with ED staff from different program offices (89, 

+6). The Grant Performance Reporting Requirements is a new survey section for 2020, and in this initial 

year of measurement DHSI grantees provided a rating of 76. The ease of submitting report(s) 

electronically was the highest rated component of the driver section (86), and the understanding of how 

ED uses your data was rated the lowest (63). Providing grantees with an explanation of how and why ED 

uses the data that grantees provide to them should help to keep grantees engaged and likely lead to 

more quality reports. In the custom questions section of the survey, grantees were asked to evaluate the 

technical assistance received from DHSI. Program staff received a significant 5 point increase in 2020 for 

their knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures (90). Although still receiving 

generally high positive ratings, opportunities for improvement relate to the communication practices, and 

include Frequency of communication (78), timeliness of the grant award notification (79), and 

responsiveness to questions (82). One respondent left the following comment, “Respond to requests 

more quickly. Also, close the feedback loop in conversations with grantees. Sometimes we provide 

requested information but receive no response at all.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected 

can be found in Appendix C.

Strengthening Institutions Program

After a 13-point spike in satisfaction from 2018 to 2019 the Strengthening Institutions Program grantee 

satisfaction score settled in at a 75 in 2020. Significant score improvements were achieved for two of the 

three drivers of satisfaction that were included in the survey last year. The ED Staff/Coordination driver 

score increased notably to an overall score of 88, which is the highest scoring driver rated by SIP 

grantees. Senior OPE officers display high levels of professionalism (93) and knowledge of relevant 

legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures (91) in their interactions with grantees. The Online 

Resources survey section asks grantees to evaluate the program specific content housed within the 

ED.gov website. The driver score significantly improved in 2020 to an overall score of 74; a score 

increase of 11 points in the past two years. A new attribute was added to the Online Resources survey 

section asking for grantees’ perception of the quality of content, to which a strong rating of 75 was 

provided. A helpful suggestion was provided by one respondent when asked how the Department could 

improve its website; “Very text heavy. Could be more visual. Consider using a short form feature to target 

specific pages based on need of visitor.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can be found 

in Appendix C. SIP Grantees rated the Information in Application Package an 86, with all attributes that 

comprise the driver scoring 81 or higher. Grantees were asked to evaluate the technical assistance

received from the Strengthening Institutions Program in the custom questions section of the survey. The 

scores for four of the five attributes measured regarding the technical assistance received dropped in 

2020, with the ability to resolve issues attribute decreasing by a statistically significant margin (82, -5). 

Scores remain relatively strong for components that measure the technical assistance received, however 

efforts to halt the decline in scores should be considered. The timeliness of response to grantee inquiries 

may offer a quick win in improving the grantee experience, as reflected by comment provided by one SIP 

respondent, “In a few words, improved response time and more consistent follow-through would help 

immensely.”

Child Care Access Means Parents in School

Child Care Access Means Parents in School Program (CCAMPIS) grantees rated their overall satisfaction 

81, 3 points higher than the average satisfaction rating of all programs surveyed in 2020. All driver scores 

(the key components of the grantee experience that ultimately impact overall satisfaction) were rated 

positively by CCAMPIS grantees. Significant score improvements were received for ED Staff/Coordination 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 39

(87, +4) and Online Resources (73, +8). The attribute scores that comprise the ED Staff/Coordination 

driver range from 80 to 94, indicating that the needs of grantees are largely being met by senior OPE 

officers. The significant improvement in the Online Resources driver score reflects notable gains in all 

three attributes since 2019; ease of finding materials online (71, +8), ability to accomplish what you want 

on the site (72, +7), and ease of navigation (73, +6). The open-end feedback includes opportunities for 

improvement of the program specific content available on the ED.gov website, as indicated by comments 

such as, “I have had trouble navigating the website. There is a lot of information.” Several other 

comments speak to the volume of information and the difficulty in navigating to the desired information,

such as removal of outdated resources and providing clean links presented in plain sight, and a generally 

more user-friendly up-to-date website. Open-ended comments suggest that improvements in the grantee 

experience should focus on the frequency of communications with grantees (72).

Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP-State)

The Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP-State) grantee 

satisfaction was rated a 64. The grantee satisfaction score of 64 makes the GEAR UP-State program the 

lowest scoring in terms of satisfaction of the 21 OPE programs that participated in the survey in 2020. 

The highest scoring driver of satisfaction is claimed by ED Staff/Coordination with an overall score of 80. 

Scores for the attributes that comprise the driver score were wide-ranging (65-94), and a closer look at 

the lower scoring components highlight the areas in which the greatest opportunity for improvement exist. 

The low scores for consistency of responses with ED staff from different program offices (65) and 

collaboration with other ED programs or offices in providing relevant services (68) indicate that grantees 

desire more consistency in senior OPE officers’ responses from different program offices and hope for 

more collaborative efforts to provide relevant services for GEAR UP-State grantees. In the Online 

Resources survey section grantees were asked to evaluate the program-specific content made available 

to them on the ED.gov website, to which a relatively low score of 60 was provided. When asked how the 

Department could improve its website there exist several comments that invite collaboration between 

grantees and ED to make improvements to the website, as displayed by the following comment, “The 

resources are limited and could ask Gear Up grantees to share best practices that the Department would 

deem valuable.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C. The 

Information in Application Package driver score rated by GEAR UP-State grantees is 78, making this 

program the lowest scoring for all OPE programs surveyed in 2020. The lowest scoring components 

within this survey section were for Page Limitation Instructions (66) and Formatting Instructions (64). In 

the Distribution of Funds survey section, which is a segment of the GEAR UP-State custom questions 

section, a low score of 54 was provided for the transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees. Certainly, limitations exist on the information that can be openly shared with grantees regarding 

the distribution of funds, however the current level of transparency should be improved upon by 

communicating with grantees the limitations that exist in sharing sensitive information and why these

limitations exist. 

GEAR UP-Partnerships

The satisfaction among grantees of the GEAR UP-Partnerships Program was rated a 79, one point higher 

than the average satisfaction rating of all programs surveyed in 2020. The driver scores range from 72 for 

Online Resources to 89 for both ED Staff/Coordination and Information in Application Package. Senior 

OPE officers are effective in their interactions with GEAR UP-Partnerships grantees as displayed by the 

strong scores for knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures (92), 

professionalism (93), and collaboration with other ED programs or offices in providing relevant services

(90). The Information in Application Package (89) component is paired with ED Staff/Coordination as the 

top-performing drivers in 2020. The attributes that comprise the Information in Application Package driver 

were rated very positively by grantees with scores in the mid-80s to low-90s. The Online Resources 

survey section asks grantees to evaluate the program specific content housed within the ED.gov website, 

to which an overall driver score of 72 was provided. The open-end feedback provided by grantees of the 

GEAR UP-Partnerships Program regarding improvements to the website commonly reference the desire 

for a more user-friendly design, and designated sections for FAQs and common topics of interest. When 

responding to how the Department could improve its website one respondent stated, “Make website more 

user friendly, with common topics highlighted on home page for easy access. Include a 'how do I' function 

so that users can type what they are trying to do/find,” and another suggests, “Create a space called 

'HOT TOPICS' that would include important information and webinars.” A full read-out of the verbatim 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 40

feedback collected can be found in Appendix C. When responding to the GEAR UP-Partnerships custom 

question that asks grantees to evaluate the communication with grantees GEAR UP specialist, grantees 

provided a low score of 75 for the frequency of communication. One approach to consider improving upon 

the rating of the frequency of communication is to distribute re-occurring communications to grantees in 

the form of a newsletter, webinar or email blast. When grantees are communicated with on a regular 

basis it will increase their sense of value and likely improve the overall grantee experience. 

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

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

rated a 77, a strong score in this initial year of survey participation, and just 1 point less than the average 

satisfaction rating of all programs surveyed in 2020. The scores for the five drivers of satisfaction that are 

measured in the survey range from 73 for Technical Assistance to 90 for the Information in Application 

Package. This high score of 90 for the Information in Application Package driver, in addition to the 

attribute level scores which all received 87 or higher, indicate that the information in the application 

package is relatively easy to understand. The program specific content available to ANNH grantees on 

the ED.gov website is measured in the Online Resources section of the survey. This driver score driver 

score was rated a 76 overall; a relatively high score compared to all other OPE programs that participated 

in the survey in 2020. A closer look at the Online Resources attribute scores indicates the greatest 

opportunities for growth/improvements. Most notable among these is the ease of finding materials online

(72). Specific suggestions for improvements include ensuring that content is up to date and links are 

displayed in an easily identifiable position on the home page to route users to the most commonly soughtafter resources. ANNH grantees rated their interactions with Senior OPE officers at 81, reflecting strong 

ratings for their knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures (89) and staff’s 

professionalism (89). The ED Staff/Coordination driver section and open-ended responses indicate 

opportunities to improve include the responsiveness to questions (65) in both frequency and timeliness of 

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

American Overseas Research Centers

The satisfaction among grantees of the American Overseas Research Centers (AORC) Program was 

rated 89, making this program the second highest scoring OPE program surveyed in 2020 in terms of 

satisfaction. Positive ratings provided by AORC grantees were not limited to satisfaction, as the five driver 

scores were also rated very positively. A high score of 97 was provided by grantees when evaluating their 

interactions with senior OPE officers in the ED Staff/Coordination driver section. The seven attributes that 

comprise the ED Staff/Coordination driver were all rated 95 or higher, indicating that the needs of 

grantees are being met by senior OPE officers in their interactions. The AORC Program was the highest 

scoring OPE program in terms of the Information in Application Package (95). The Deadline for 

Submission attribute, one of the ten attributes associated with the Information in Application Package, 

nearly received a perfect score, landing at 99. A new section was added to the survey in 2020 asking 

grantees to evaluate the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements, to which AORC grantees provided 

a strong rating of 81. The grantee rating for their understanding of how ED uses your data (71) was 

relatively low scoring and may present an opportunity to improve upon the grantee experience. The 

custom questions section of the survey for AORC grantees includes several sections of rated questions 

for: Technical Assistance, Distribution of Funds, Communication with Program Specialist, and the 

International and Foreign Language Education (IFLE) program. Grantees provided strong ratings for the 

individual components that make up each of the custom questions survey sub-sections, ranging from 83 

for the timeliness of the grant award notification to 98 for supporting research and training in international 

studies, research and training in international studies, and instruction and research on issues in world 

affairs. 

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions (AANAPISI)

In this initial year of measurement, Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions 

(ANNH) grantees rated their satisfaction a 73. Of the core grantee experience components, ED 

Staff/Coordination received the highest score of 91. The ED Staff/Coordination survey sections asks 

grantees to consider their interactions with senior OPE officers, and they received high ratings for their 

knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures (95), responsiveness to your 

questions (94), and professionalism (97). Information in Application Package was rated an 81, presenting 

opportunities to improve. The most notable areas for improving the application package include Budget 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 41

Information and Forms (74), Deadline for Submission (77), and Review Process (77). In addition, 

ANNAPSI grantees suggest improvements are needed in the Online Resources available on the ED.gov 

website (65). The most notable areas needing improvements include the look and feel/visual appearance 

(56), Ease of finding materials online (65), and the ability to accomplish what you want on the site (66). 

The open-end feedback from AANAPSI grantees can provide useful examples of ways to improve. One 

grantee, when asked how the Department could improve its website suggested, “It's text heavy and could 

improve by organizing information into digestible content. Emphasize key links that are more visually 

impactful like 'Federal Register' (for access to 'active' AANAPISI Part A & F grant competition), historical 

background (legislation & changes to legislation), Grantees (past and present, including abstract), 

Relevant Research (repository of AANAPISI-focused scholarship and reports).” A full read-out of the 

verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C.

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Fellowships (DDRA)

Grantees of the Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Fellowships (DDRA) Program rated their 

satisfaction a 71, 6 points higher than the satisfaction score in the last year in which the DDRA Program 

participated in the Grantee Satisfaction Survey (2015). In comparison with the other 20 OPE programs 

who participated in the survey the DDRA Program’s satisfaction rating is second to last. The driver 

scores, which are the key components of the grantee experience that ultimately impact overall 

satisfaction range from 66 for Grant Performance Reporting Requirements up to 87 for the Information in 

Application Package. The relatively strong scores for the ten attributes that comprise the Information in 

Application Package driver indicate that the information provided is easy to locate and easy to 

understand, especially for information regarding: Program Purpose (93), Program Priorities (93), and 

Program Contact (93). In the ED Staff/Coordination driver section of the survey grantees were asked to 

evaluate the senior OPE officers based on the interactions they have had, to which an overall score of 85 

was provided. The attributes that comprise the ED Staff/Coordination driver were rated positively by 

grantees, with the exception of the responsiveness to your questions (67). Communication efforts should 

be prioritized by program officers when responding to grantees questions. Responses should be provided 

in a timely manner, even if the initial response does not answer the question posed, but rather asks for 

time to investigate the current answer to grantees’ questions. A new question was added to the Online 

Resources driver section that asks grantees to evaluate the look and feel/visual appearance of the 

DDRA’s program specific content available on the ED.gov website. The look and feel/visual appearance 

attribute was rated poorly with a score of 60. The low score for the look and feel/visual appearance is 

backed by grantees responses to the question, how the Department could improve its website in the 

open-end feedback where one respondent stated, “Presentation of material is densely organized, [a] bit 

overwhelming to navigate.” A full report of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C.

The scores for the attributes measured in the custom questions section of the survey range from 57 for 

timeliness of the grant award notification up to 99 for supporting research and training in international 

studies. A closer look into the lower scoring individual attributes measured in the customer questions 

survey section will present the areas in which the greatest opportunity for improving the grantee 

experience exist. When asked, What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program 

specialist, 80% of respondents selected Individual Email as their preferred method of communication. 

Foreign Language and Area Studies

The satisfaction among grantees of the Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships Program was 

rated 83, 5 points higher than the average satisfaction rating of all programs surveyed in 2020. Since 

2016, the last year that the FLAS Program was included in the survey, the grantee satisfaction score has 

improved 12 points. The ED Staff/Coordination component was the highest rated driver of satisfaction 

with an exceptional score of 96. Senior OPE officers’ interactions with grantees were rated exceedingly 

positively by FLAS grantees who were particularly complimentary of senior OPE officers knowledge of 

relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures (98), responsiveness to your questions (97), 

and professionalism (98). In the Information in Application Package (86) driver section there are ten 

attributes that were evaluated by grantees for the ease of locating and understanding the information. The 

scores that comprise the Information in Application Package driver were generally strong ranging from 78 

(Review Process) to 92 (Program Contact). Look to make website enhancements to the FLAS Program’s 

specific content housed within the ED.gov website in terms of the look and feel/visual appearance, as this 

attribute was rated relatively low at 66. On the FLAS home page provide clean links that will route website 

users to current information and resources that are most useful to grantees. The look and feel can be 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 42

improved upon by removing the outdated resources and displaying the frequently used program specific 

resources in a navigation menu that is intuitive and does not require a multitude of clicks to arrive at the 

resource desired. When responding to the question, how could the Department improve its website one 

respondent left the following comment, “Navigation menu could be better streamlined. FAQs posted 

prominently.” A full report of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C. In the custom 

questions section of the survey grantees of the FLAS program provided very strong scores. Of the 19 

individual attributes measured in the survey section, 15 were rated 92 or higher. When responding to the 

question, How can Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships improve the usefulness of the 

technical assistance you receive one respondent left a comment that reinforces the strong scores 

received, “The technical assistance has always been positive and useful.” 

Graduate Assistance in in Areas of National Need (GAANN)

The Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need Program grantee satisfaction was rated an 86 in the 

initial year of participation in the Grantee Satisfaction Survey. The GAANN grantee satisfaction rating is 

tied for the third highest among all 21 OPE programs included in the survey and is 8 points higher than 

the average satisfaction rating of all programs surveyed in 2020. The scores for the various components 

measured in the survey are strong across the board. Particular bright spots include ratings of ED 

Staff/Coordination (95) and Information in Application Package (91). The ED Staff/Coordination survey 

sections asks grantees to evaluate senior OPE officers based on the interactions that they have had. The 

scores for the seven attributes that comprise the driver were rated exceptionally well with scores ranging 

from 94 to 97. The high-performance scores for ratings of senior OPE officers indicate that the needs of 

GAANN grantees are largely being met and limited opportunities for improvement exist within this survey 

section. The overall score of 91 for the Information in Application Package informs on another facet of the 

grantee experience in which effective measures exist. The individual components of the Information in 

Application Package driver that were rated most favorably by grantees are Program Contact (95), Page 

Limitation Instructions (94), and Deadline for Submission (94). A new driver section was added to the 

survey asking grantees to evaluate the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements, to which GAANN 

grantees provided a positive rating of 83. The lowest scoring attribute of the Grant Performance Reporting 

Requirements driver is for grantees understanding of how ED uses submitted data (75). There may exist 

an opportunity by providing feedback to grantees on their submitted reports for a ‘quick win’ to improve

the overall grantee experience. In the custom questions section of the survey grantees of the GAANN 

program includes several sections of rated questions for: Technical Assistance, Distribution of Funds, and 

Communication with Program Specialist. Scores were relatively strong across the 11 attributes measured 

in the survey section with ten scores being rated 87 or higher, leaving one attribute as an outlier; 

availability of funds with adequate time for implementation (73). 

Group Projects Abroad

Grantees of Group Projects Abroad rated their satisfaction an 86 – 8 points higher than the overall survey 

average among all programs measured and 6 points higher that the satisfaction rating in 2013 when 

grantees were last surveyed. The strong satisfaction score is supported by favorable ratings for all 

components of the grantee experience. Leading the way, is a near perfect score of 95 for ED 

Staff/Coordination, a measure of the interaction and helpfulness of the federal staff supporting the 

program. The support provided by these individuals is exceptional, from their professionalism and 

responsiveness to their specific knowledge and detailed guidance pertaining to relevant legislation, 

regulations, policies and procedures. Impressive scores were also provided for Technical Assistance and

Information in Application Package, each rated a 91. The priority for each of these areas should be 

maintaining current practices as grantees are clearly happy with the status quo. The Grant Performance 

Reporting Requirements component was rated an 81, with its highest rated characteristic attributed to the 

ease of submitting reports electronically (85) and the availability of assistance in completing the report 

(84). Like many other programs, the biggest area for opportunity pertaining to the annual reporting is in 

sharing with grantees how their submitted data is being used. This attribute was rated a 70, which lags 

behind the others by a considerable margin. A couple of grantees indicated that they struggled with 

getting their participants to complete their reports. Offering grantees tactics that could be helpful in 

increasing the participant engagement in the reporting process could help alleviate some of the burden 

currently felt by some of the survey respondents. When asked how the program could improve its 

communication with grantees, several responded that current methods are working well and that the new 

program officer is very responsive to requests. 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 43

Language Resource Centers

Language Resource Centers grantees rated their overall satisfaction an 86, a very high score in its first 

year participating in the Grantee Satisfaction Survey. Like many other programs, the highest rated 

component is ED Staff/Coordination with a score of 95. Interactions with senior officers at the Department 

are clearly meeting the needs of grantees who gave perfect scores for responsiveness, professionalism 

and sufficiency of legal guidance. The Technical Assistance score (94) is not far behind, indicating the 

technical services provided do an excellent job of helping successfully implement the Language Resource 

Centers grant. The Information in Application Package score of 93 reveals another highlight of the 

grantee experience. All characteristics of the application package received strong ratings but there may 

be an opportunity to clear up the formatting instructions, as this attribute was relatively lower than the 

others with a score of 84. The program content on the ED.gov website was rated an 89 overall, 14 points 

above the OPE average. The look and feel attribute was the lowest rated specific website item with a 

rating of 79. Freshening up the visual appearance of the site presents the greatest opportunity for 

improving the Online Resources rating any further. The lowest rated component of the grantee 

experience measured on the survey is the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements driver. With an 

overall score of 80, this is by no means an indicating of poor, or even average, performance. However, in 

relative terms, this is the lowest component score for Language Resource Centers grantees and therefore 

could be prioritized for improvement efforts with the intention of driving overall grantee satisfaction even 

higher. Communicating with grantees on how the Department uses the submitted information would be 

beneficial as this is the lowest rated attribute in this area. The open-ended feedback provided by grantees 

also notes shifting benchmarks and fluctuations over the four-year grant period that end up making the 

reported data less useful. Overall, the results from Language Resource Centers grantees are extremely 

positive and the opportunities for improving grantee satisfaction further lie in incremental improvements in 

the margins rather than any largescale changes to what grantees have come to expect.

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program

Grantees of the Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program rated their satisfaction an 84, 

which is 6 points above the overall average among all programs surveyed and 1 point higher than this 

program’s most recent measure in 2017. Three of the five key aspects of the grantee experience received 

exceptional scores on the 90s. ED Staff/Coordination led all others with a score of 94. All attributes 

related to the interactions grantees have with senior program staff at the Department were rated very 

high, validating that current support policies and procedures are working well with no apparent need for 

changes. The Technical Assistance received and Information in Application Package were each rated a 

93, again affirming that improvement efforts can be directed elsewhere at this time. Online Resources, a 

measure of the program’s content available on the ED.gov website, was rated an 88, which is a 6-point 

improvement for this program since the 2017 survey. The ease of navigation has improved (87, +6), and 

the visual appearance of the site received a very high initial score of 88 this year. A new section of the 

questionnaire, Grant Performance Reporting Requirements, was rated a 79 and shows the area with the 

greatest opportunity for improving overall grantee satisfaction. Specific suggestions from the open-ended 

feedback provided by grantees include allowing for the inclusion of photos, expanding the word limits to 

sections, and modifying the mandatory options of the form “to accommodate the idiosyncrasy of projects, 

institutions, and project directors.” There is also an opportunity to improve the feedback provided to 

grantees after their reports have been submitted to inform them of how their data is being used as this 

was the lowest rated reporting item at 64.

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions

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

an 83 in 2020, the first year this program has been included in the Grantee Satisfaction Survey. 

Information in Application Package was the highest rated driver of satisfaction with a score of 87, made 

up of very high marks across all of its individual characteristics. ED Staff/Coordination was also rated very 

strong at 85. Senior program officers at the Department are extremely knowledgeable, professional and 

provide useful guidance to grantees. The areas of opportunity for senior officers lie in being more 

consistent with other ED program offices with their responses and looking for ways to collaborate with 

other programs in providing relevant services. The Grant Performance Reporting Requirements driver 

was rated a 75 overall, with notable variance in its individual attribute scores. The strengths within this 

aspect of the grantee experience are the ease of submitting reports electronically (81) and the usefulness 

of the data in helping improve the grant program (80). More likely areas of opportunity include improving 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 44

the clarity of the reporting requirements (74) and understanding how the Department uses the submitted 

data (61). A couple of grantees also voiced their desire to have more time to complete the reports and 

would appreciate deadlines being announced sooner. Online Resources, a measure of the program 

content available on ED.gov, was the lowest rated driver at 66. The website received particularly low 

marks for its visual appearance (61) and ease of navigation (60). Several grantees commented on the 

need to simplify the site by showing buttons/links to commonly used resources prominently and greatly 

reduce the amount of information shown on the homepage. There is also a need to ensure that content is 

updated on a more routine basis so that grantees have confidence that the online materials are up-todate and accurate. Overall, the ratings provided by this program’s grantees are strong, especially given 

this is its first year measuring satisfaction. Understanding where the strengths lie and addressing the 

areas where scores are lower will shore up the inconsistencies and lead to an improved level of grantee 

satisfaction.

Predominantly Black Institutions

Predominantly Black Institutions grantees rated their overall satisfaction an 86 – 8 points above the 

survey average and 22 points higher than this program’s last measurement using the Grantee 

Satisfaction Survey in 2013. Senior program officers at the Department are excelling in providing 

guidance and direction to grantees, as the ED Staff/Coordination component is rated at a near perfect 95. 

The high marks for all aspects of the service they provide makes the priority for this area simply 

maintaining the status quo. Likewise, the Information in Application Package is hitting all the right notes, 

with an overall rating of 94. There are no clear opportunities for improvement with how grantees receive 

the applications, with each of its individual attributes rated in the 90s. Online Resources was rated an 84, 

with its relative strengths being the accuracy of search results (87), quality of content (86) and the ability 

to accomplish the goal of visiting the site (86). The overall look and feel of the site received the lowest 

Online Resources score of 79 and could provide some opportunity for improvement. A new section to the 

questionnaire in 2020, Grant Performance Reporting Requirements, was rated an 81 by this program’s 

grantees. While this is a very strong score, some grantees noted that they would prefer more consistency 

in when the annual report will be due year-over-year. There is also a desire for more feedback from the 

Department regarding how submitted data is used. Overall, Predominantly Black Institutions grantees are 

very satisfied with the support their experience. Improvements mostly lie within the margins, without any 

need for drastic changes. Looking forward, the program should continue to prioritize having dedicated 

staff provide knowledgeable guidance when needed, supported by regular training opportunities and the 

chance to collaborate with grantees of other programs to identify best practices.

Promoting Post Baccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans

Grantees of the Promoting Post Baccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans program rated their 

satisfaction an 86 – 10 points higher than their last measurement in 2017. The high satisfaction is 

supported by very strong scores across all core components of the grantee experience. The Information 

in Application Package driver was rated a 90, with high scores for each individual characteristic of the 

applications. These high scores leave little room for improvement at this time, which makes the case to 

maintain the current structure and procedures surrounding the application. ED Staff/Coordination also 

received a very high score of 85. This measure of the support provided by senior program officers at the 

Department reveals a tremendous job being done, especially in the areas of collaborating with other ED 

programs (93) and providing responses that are consistent with what grantees hear from other program 

offices (93). In looking for ways to improve interactions with grantees, overall responsiveness presents 

the greatest opportunity for improvement with a score of 74. This is 1 point lower than in 2017 and falls 

well behind the other attribute scores in the area of ED Staff/Coordination. The Grant Performance 

Reporting Requirements driver was rated an 82, which is 6 points higher than the survey average among 

all participating programs. Any immediate improvements in this area are likely to be the product of 

improved clarity in the requirement or providing more feedback to grantees in terms of how their 

submitted data is used. Suggestions within the open-ended feedback from grantees include preparing a 

one-sheet fact summary and offering more training for how to prepare the annual report. Overall, 

grantees of this program are very satisfied and complimentary of the work being done by the Department 

to support them. Ensuring that officers are responsive and even proactive in disseminating relevant 

information to grantees is an important component in any efforts to drive satisfaction higher. 

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 45

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities grantees’ satisfaction is much higher than 

when last measured by the Grantee Satisfaction Survey in 2016. Since that time, satisfaction has 

improved 11 points to a score of 82. Senior program officers are doing a great job interacting with 

grantees as evidenced by the score of 91 for ED Staff/Coordination. Likewise, the Information in 

Application Package driver score of 90 shows no need for immediate changes when it comes to the 

application structure or content. The rating of 80 for Grant Performance Reporting Requirements is 

somewhat lower than these other key aspects of the grantee experience and could present some 

opportunity for improvement. Most notably, enhancing the clarity of the reporting requirements, making it 

easier to track down the data needed for the reports and then providing feedback to grantees on how the 

Department is using their submitted data have the greatest room for improvement. However, it should be 

noted that all of these attributes were rated in the 70s, so the room for improvement is relative. Openended feedback suggests that “enhancing the services provided by the Helpdesk so that the instructions 

are clearer when navigating the [reporting] system” would be helpful. Other suggestions for general 

improvement include pre-recording technical assistance training videos or webinars and making them 

available on demand. With a strong level of grantee satisfaction in 2020, improvements in the short term

are more realistically going to come from incremental changes that address direct grantee feedback 

rather than any significant changes that disrupt the current grantee experience. The comprehensive 

open-ended feedback from grantees can be found in Appendix C of this report. 

Student Support Services

Grantees of the Student Support Services program rated their satisfaction a 73. This is 5 points below the 

overall survey average among all participating programs, but also represents a 5-point improvement for 

Student Support Services’ last satisfaction measurement in 2016. The ED Staff/Coordination driver score 

is 78 and includes particularly high scores for the professionalism of senior program officers (86) and their 

knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures (83). At the other end of the 

spectrum, their responsiveness to questions was rated a 72 and should be considered the top priority for 

any improvement efforts directed at the support program officers provide to grantees. Online Resources, 

which measures the program content available to grantees on the ED.gov website was rated a 73, a 2-

point improvement from the 2016 score for this program. A common theme among the Student Support 

Services grantee feedback was the desire to have the website content updated more frequently. A new 

section of the 2020 questionnaire measures various aspects of the Grant Performance Reporting 

Requirements. This driver’s initial score for this program is 78 – 2 points above the survey average. This 

is a strong component with mostly positive feedback from grantees but opportunities for improvement lie 

in making the timing of the report consistent year-over-year and providing more feedback to grantees as 

to how their submitted data is used by the Department. Within the custom question section of the survey, 

this program’s grantees rated the timeliness of the grant award notification a 45, far lower than most other 

OPE programs. Delays in the award notifications can cause stressful situations and logistical concerns, 

so providing more time before the end of a current grant cycle is crucial should be a top priority.

Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities - Part A

Grantees of the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities program have an extremely high level of 

satisfaction, rated a 90 in 2020. This is 12 points above the overall survey average and 18 points higher 

for this specific program when last measured in 2015. Many of the key components of the grantee 

experience receive strong ratings, though interestingly, none reach the same level as overall satisfaction. 

ED Staff/Coordination is the highest rated driver at 85. Grantees rate the support they receive from senior 

program officers at the Department exceptionally high when it comes to their professionalism (97) and

responsiveness (89). The Information in Application Package (84) driver is rated favorably, though its 

2020 score is 8 points lower than the measurement in 2015. The characteristics of the application 

package that are the least clear and easy to understand by grantees are the formatting instructions (76) 

and the review process (76). It is also important to keep context in mind when interpreting the score 

changes for this program from 2015 to 2020. This year, there were a total of eight respondents and in 

2015 the number was 13. These low sample sizes yield more variability in the results than other programs 

with more datapoints. Feedback regarding the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements was gathered 

for the first time in 2020 and for grantees of this program, the highest rated attributes in this area were the 

ease of submitting reports electronically (82) and the availability of assistance in completing reports (71). 

Areas that offer more room for improvement include the clarity of reporting requirements (68), the ease of 

obtaining data required for the report (64) and communicating with grantees as to how their submitted 

data are used by the Department (61). Grantees of this program are very appreciative of the 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 46

responsiveness and level of knowledge of their program officers. This strong relationship can be 

leveraged to provide additional guidance in some of these areas associated with lower ratings in an effort 

to shore of those aspects of the grantee experience and maintain high levels of overall satisfaction.

Upward Bound

Upward Bound grantee satisfaction was rated a 73 in 2020, a 5-point improvement since their last year of 

participating in the Grantee Satisfaction Survey in 2018. The score of 77 for the ED Staff/Coordination 

driver is generally strong, but it is 10 points below the overall survey average among all participating 

programs. Interactions between grantees and senior program officers can be improved with quicker 

response times and increased detail in the legal guidance provided. Online Resources, which measures 

program content on the ED.gov website, received ratings in the 70s across all of its individual attributes. 

Based on the scores and also the open-ended feedback provided, the greatest opportunities for 

improving grantees’ website experience lie in a more visually pleasant homepage that is not so text heavy 

and ensuring that content is kept up to date. The Grant Performance Reporting Requirements driver was 

rated a 75, on par with many other programs. Its highest marks were given for the ease of submitting the 

report electronically (83) and the clarity of reporting requirements (80). Lower scores were given for the 

ease of obtaining data required to report (71) and the understanding of how the Department uses 

submitted data (67). Open-ended feedback also includes suggestions of offering additional training on 

completing the annual report, including the use of pre-recorded videos or live training sessions where 

questions can be asked and answered. Upward Bound grantees are generally satisfied with the various 

aspects of their program experience but satisfaction stands to improve with more deliberate and 

consistent communication from program officers. Some grantees have voiced their frustration with not 

being able to connect with program staff and during a particularly challenging year, having confidence 

that reliable guidance is only a phone call or email away is critical to overall grantee satisfaction.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 47

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE)

Teacher Quality Partnership Program

In the first year of participation in the Grantee Satisfaction Survey grantees among the Teacher Quality 

Partnership Program rated their satisfaction an 82; 4 points higher than the average satisfaction rating of 

all programs that participated in the survey. The scores for the five drivers of satisfaction range from 83 

for Technical Assistance all the way up to 92 for ED Staff/Coordination. The high scores for the attributes 

that comprise the ED Staff/Coordination indicate that federal staff are effective in providing a positive 

grantee experience when interacting with the grantees to share knowledge, answer questions and

provide guidance. A new driver section was added to the survey asking grantees to evaluate the Grant 

Performance Reporting Requirements, to which TQP grantees provided a positive rating of 84. Scores 

were particularly high for the availability of assistance in completing the report (89) and the ease of 

submitting report(s) electronically (88). The lowest scoring attribute in the Grant Performance Reporting 

Requirements survey section was for grantees understanding of how ED uses your data (72). In the 

custom questions section of the survey grantees were asked to evaluate the TQP program staff, and the 

high scores speak to the effectiveness of the staff in creating a positive grantee experience; accessibility 

and responsiveness of TQP program staff (90), clarity of information provided by TQP program staff (88), 

monitoring and reports sufficiently help program staff understand your project (92). The high scores are 

backed by the open-end feedback in which respondents were complimentary of TQP program staff, “I 

have found the TQP program staff to be very helpful and professional. They work with us so that our 

project and all involved can be successful. Very impressed with the TQP staff.” A full read-out of the 

verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C.

Statewide Family Engagement Centers

The Statewide Family Engagement Centers Program grantee satisfaction was rated an 83 in the first year 

that this program has participated in the Grantee Satisfaction Survey. The five drivers of satisfaction were 

rated positively, most notably the ED Staff/Coordination score was rated an exceptional 97. Federal staff 

were given perfect scores of 100 when grantees were asked to evaluate staff on their professionalism 

and their responsiveness to questions. The Documents driver, which measures the written 

correspondence provided to grantees, was the next highest scoring landing at 85. The individual 

attributes that comprise with the Documents driver were all rated relatively well at 81 or higher. The 

written correspondence that is currently being provided is effective and informative, but to maintain the 

high scores, prioritize efforts to keep documentation up-to-date and relevant to the current issues/needs 

of grantees of the Statewide Family Engagement Centers Program. In the Online Resources section of 

the survey grantees were asked to evaluate the content specific to their program that is housed within the 

OESE.ED.gov website, to which a rating of 74 was provided. The driver score of 74 only puts the 

Statewide Family Engagement Centers Program’s rating 1 point behind the aggregate average. A closer 

look at the attribute scores reveals the areas in which the greatest potential for improvement exist; ability 

to accomplish what you want on the site (69). Work to gain a better understanding of what the most 

common reasons grantees possess to visit the website so that adjustments can be targeted to increase 

the rate at which grantees are able to complete what they set out to accomplish. In the custom questions 

section of the survey grantees were asked to evaluate their experience with receiving technical 

assistance from the School Choice and Improvement Division. Scores were remarkably high for the 

custom survey section, most notably for the ability to resolve issues (100), use of clear and concise 

written and verbal communication (100), and overall satisfaction with service provided by the program 

officer (100).

Immediate Aid to Restart School Operations

The satisfaction among grantees of the Immediate Aid to Restart School Operations Program was rated 

an 81 in the first year that the program has participated in the Grantee Satisfaction Survey. The 

satisfaction score of 81 is a positive result which shows that despite its small size in terms of number of 

grantees, the support received by this program is well received. Consistent with many other programs 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 48

surveyed in 2020, the ED Staff/Coordination driver was the highest rated by grantees of the Immediate 

Aid to Restart School Operations Program with an exceptional score of 93. Federal staff display 

professionalism (100) and possess high levels of knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures (93). In the Online Resources section of the survey grantees were asked to evaluate the 

content specific to their program that is housed within the OESE.ED.gov website, to which a rating of 77 

was provided. The attributes that comprise the Online Resources driver were rated positively by grantees, 

particularly for the ease of finding materials online (82). The lower scoring components inform on areas in 

which adjustments/updates will offer the greatest potential for improving the grantee experience. The 

accuracy of search results and ease of navigation were rated 72 and 73, respectively. Efforts to provide 

clean links that will route grantees to current and relevant resources on this program’s home page will 

provide easier navigation options and likely cut down on the number of grantees who utilize the search 

bar to find resources. In the custom questions section of the survey, grantees of the Immediate Aid to 

Restart School Operations Program were asked for the areas in which they would like technical 

assistance. Of the five respondents who completed the survey, three indicated they would like technical 

assistance in the use of funds and the other two individuals selected subrecipient technical assistance or 

monitoring and oversight.

Project Prevent

Grantees of the Project Prevent Program rated their satisfaction an 85, which makes this program tied for 

the fourth highest scoring in terms of satisfaction of all OESE programs who participated in the survey in 

2020. The Project Prevent Program last participated in the Grantee Satisfaction Survey in 2018 and since 

that time the satisfaction rating has improved 3 points. Performance scores across the five drivers of 

satisfaction that are measured in the survey are strong, with ED Staff/Coordination being awarded the 

highest rating in 2020 with an overall score of 95. The individual attributes that comprise the driver were 

rated very well by grantees ranging from 94 to 99. Scores in the 90s for the ED Staff/Coordination driver 

section indicate that there are limited opportunities for improvement, and adjustments are better focused 

on the lower scoring components. The Online Resources, which asks grantees to evaluate the programspecific content made available to them on the OESE.ED.gov website, was rated an 85. The ease of 

navigation (86) and ease of finding materials online (86) attributes were the highest scoring attributes of 

the Online Resources survey section. A new section was added to the survey in 2020 asking grantees to 

evaluate the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements, to which Project Prevent grantees provided a 

rating of 83. Although the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements driver is the lowest scoring for this 

program, the overall score of 83 is strong. The strong driver score was bolstered by the high performing 

attributes: availability of assistance in completing your report(s) (89), usefulness of the data to help you 

improve your grant program/project (87), and ease of submitting report(s) electronically (86). Efforts to 

improve upon the ease of obtaining data grantees are required to report (73) should be considered as this 

component was the lowest scoring of all attributes being measured in the survey. In the custom questions 

section of the survey grantees were asked to evaluate the one-on-one communication (via phone or 

email) with their Federal project Officer. Federal project Officers were rated exceptionally well for their 

responsiveness to questions about Project Prevent Grant Program requirements (93) and effectiveness in 

providing technical assistance or guidance (93).

Native Hawaiian Education Act Program

Grantees of the Native Hawaiian Education Act Program rated their satisfaction an 82 in the first year that 

the program has participated in the Grantee Satisfaction Survey. The 5 drivers of satisfaction were rated 

relatively strong, with ED Staff/Coordination topping the list with an overall score of 93. The ED 

Staff/Coordination score of 93 places the Native Hawaiian Education Act Program tied for the third 

highest score of all OESE programs that participated in the 2020 Grantee Satisfaction Survey. The 

attributes that comprise the driver all scored 89 or higher indicating that opportunities for improvements to 

the grantee experience should be focused elsewhere. The Online Resources survey section asks 

grantees to evaluate the resources that are made available to them on the OESE.ED.gov website, to 

which an overall driver score of 79 was given. Grantees provide strong ratings for the quality of content

(82) and accuracy of search results (80). Any improvements made to the website in terms of the look and 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 49

feel in the coming months will help to improve the lowest scoring attribute of the Online Resources driver; 

look and feel/visual appearance (74). One respondent when asked how the Department could improve its 

website stated, “Make it look inviting” and another said, “The look and feel of the website needs to be 

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

questions section of the survey NHE grantees were asked to rate the knowledge of the U.S. Department 

of Education staff on NHE program grant administration issues and on program administration issues as 

they assist your grant project. An exceptional score of 92 was provided for knowledge of staff on program 

grant administration issues. Fifty-four percent of grantees indicated that NHE staff initiated technical 

assistance during the past 3-6 months; when asked Where and how did the technical assistance or 

support take place, 92% of respondents selected via conference call/email exchange with Program 

Officer.

Mental Health Demonstration Grants Program

The satisfaction among grantees of the Mental Health Demonstration Grants Program was rated a 78 in 

the initial year of this program being included in the Grantee Satisfaction Survey. The satisfaction score of 

78 matches the average satisfaction score of all programs participating in the survey in 2020. The ED 

Staff/Coordination driver is a strong point in the grantee experience as this was the highest rated driver at 

an 89 overall. Scores are relatively strong for the six attributes that comprise this driver ranging from 84 

for the responsiveness to questions all the way up to 96 for federal staff’s professionalism. In the 

Technical Assistance section of the survey (TA driver score=88) grantees provided an exceptionally high 

score for ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to implement grant project (94). The high 

scores for this survey section indicate that the current procedures and practices that are in place 

regarding the Technical Assistance that is provided to Mental Health Demonstration Grants Program 

grantees are helpful, educational, and informative. In the open-end feedback one respondent stated, “Our 

technical advisor has been excellent. He listens to our concerns, guides us appropriately, provides 

excellent resources to enhance our grant's offerings to parents, students and staff.” A full read-out of the 

verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C. A new section was added to the Grantee 

Satisfaction Survey in 2020 asking for evaluations of the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements. 

The driver score was rated a 77 in the initial measurement, which is 1 point higher than the average rating 

of all programs surveyed in 2020. When asked to evaluate the understanding of how ED uses your data, 

grantees provided a rating of 71; a relatively low scoring component for the Mental Health Demonstration 

Grants Program. In the custom questions section of the survey grantees were asked to evaluate the 

technical assistance, including meetings, written guidance, webinars, and presentations that you receive 

from the P2 technical assistance team. Strong scores were provided for each of the components in this 

section; technical assistance - relevance and usefulness (85), technical assistance - frequency of 

communication (84), and use of technology to deliver services (84). 

Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program

The Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program grantee satisfaction was rated a 

69, 3 points lower than the satisfaction rating in 2018; the last year in which this program participated in 

the survey. Scores for the drivers of satisfaction range from 68 to 83, and the driver scores provide insight 

into the areas that should be adjusted to improve upon the overall grantee experience. The ED 

Staff/Coordination driver is the highest scoring at 83, and attribute scores in the 80s indicate that grantees 

are having generally positive experiences in terms of their interactions with federal staff. The Documents 

section of the survey asks grantees to evaluate the written materials that are provided including nonregulatory guidance, frequently asked questions (FAQs), letters, publications, and blast emails, to which 

grantees provided a score of 69. The overall driver score of 69 reflects a 9-point decrease from 2018, and 

each of the five attributes that are associated with the Documents driver also decreased in the past two

years. Grantees gave low scores of 68 for the sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs and 

comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues that you face. The lower scoring attributes 

highlight the opportunity for adjustments to be made in efforts to improve upon the grantee experience. 

Perform an audit on the written materials that the Javits Program grantees receive to understand the 

components that be lacking, outdated or irrelevant. Additionally, look to obtain feedback from grantees 

that informs staff on the specific needs and issues that grantees are faced with so that documentation can 

be provided to address the needs/issues raised. In the Technical Assistance survey section grantees 

rated the Creating opportunities to share best practices via learning groups attribute relatively low (56). In 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 50

the open-end feedback there are mentions of grantees desire for networking opportunities, collaboration

and peer-to-peer sharing. One respondent stated, “DOE may inform means and opportunities to share 

best practices between peers more often.” The opportunity to improve upon the Javits Program grantee 

experience may start with an increased effort by Federal staff to provide collaboration and learning group 

opportunities in which grantees can share their lessons learned and best practices amongst their peers. A 

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

Innovative Approaches to Literacy

The satisfaction among grantees of the Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program was rated an 88, 1 

point higher than the satisfaction rating in 2018; the last year in which this program participated in the 

survey. Driver scores were rated very positively by grantees, with scores ranging from 83 for Grant 

Performance Reporting Requirements to 90 for ED Staff/Coordination. The ED Staff/Coordination section 

of the survey boasts scores of 85 and higher for all six individual attributes measured in the driver section. 

Federal staff interact with grantees in a professional (95) manner and possesses high levels of knowledge 

of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures (91). When evaluating the Online Resources 

available on the OESE.ED.gov website for this program’s content grantees provided a strong rating of 84, 

9 points higher than the average rating of all programs surveyed in 2020. In an effort to improve upon the 

low scoring attribute for Online Resources, ease of finding materials online (82), evaluate the links on the 

website to ensure they are functioning correctly, and route users to current and relevant resources. In the 

initial measurement of the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements, a rating of 83 was given by 

Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program grantees. Scores are relatively strong for the attributes that 

comprise the driver ranging from 78 to 87. When asked to evaluate the technical support and assistance 

received from the U.S. Department of Education staff and the technical assistance provider 2M Research,

grantees gave strong ratings for each attribute being measured. An exceptional score of 89 was given for 

the overall satisfaction with service provided by the representative followed closely by the quality of 

information or feedback received from IAL program staff, which was rated an 88.

High School Equivalency Program (HEP) – Migrant Education

Grantees of the High School Equivalency Program - Migrant Education rated their satisfaction an 88, 

making this program tied for the highest scoring OESE program in terms of satisfaction. The High School 

Equivalency Program was last included in the survey in 2018, and scores for 2020 indicate that 

improvements have been made over the last two years. The scores range from 83 to 93 for the five

drivers of satisfaction included in the survey. The ED Staff/Coordination driver is the highest scoring in 

2020 at an overall score of 93. The strong driver score is bolstered by the exceptionally strong attribute 

scores for knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures (94), communication 

about changes that may affect your program (93), and professionalism (97). No clear weaknesses exist in 

the ED Staff/Coordination driver section, which illuminates the effectiveness of federal staff in their 

interactions with grantees. In the Online Resources survey section grantees are asked to evaluate their 

experience in using the High School Equivalency Program online resources on the OESE.ED.gov 

website. Although Online Resources is the lowest rated driver for HEP the overall score of 83 is strong 

and reflects a 6-point improvement compared to the ratings received in 2018. The ease of finding 

materials online improved 13 points since last measured in 2018, indicating that website enhancements 

made for HEP grantees have been well received and are easing their efforts. To further improve the 

ratings for Online Resources, work to fix/remove broken or outdated links, as one open-ended response 

states, “Some of the links are broke or outdated.” One question included in the custom survey section 

asks HEP grantees to share any comments on how the HEP team can better support your work. The 

comment that stated, “HEP team does a great job supporting the needs of our program” is further backed 

by strong scores for accessibility and responsiveness of program staff (91) and the Usefulness and 

relevance of technical assistance strategies (91). A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can 

be found in Appendix C. 

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

The satisfaction among grantees of the Full-service community schools (ESEA IV-F-2, section 4625) 

Program was rated a 79, 1 point higher than the average satisfaction rating of all programs surveyed in 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 51

2020. In the first year of participation in the survey grantees of the Full-service community schools 

Program provided strong ratings for each of the five drivers of satisfaction included in the survey. The ED 

Staff/Coordination driver was rated an 87. Federal staff displayed high levels of knowledge of relevant 

legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures highlighted by an impressive score of 93, followed 

closely by the score for staff’s professionalism which was rated a 92. No major changes should be 

implemented in terms of adjusting ED staff’s procedures in their interactions with grantees as scores 

indicate the effectiveness of ED staff’s current process, however slight tweaks made in the legal guidance 

provided in responses (81) will help to improve the overall grantee experience. A new section was added 

to the survey in 2020 asking grantees to evaluate the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements, to 

which a rating of 71 was provided. Grant Performance Reporting Requirements is the lowest scoring 

driver for this program, the lowest scoring attributes associated with the driver will highlight weaknesses 

to focus improvement efforts towards. Grantees rated the ease of submitting report(s) electronically very 

low (60) relative to the other survey components being measured. Identifying the pain points of grantees 

in their efforts to submit report(s) electronically will provide the opportunity to design a targeted approach 

to make the process much easier and more intuitive. In the Technical Assistance section of the survey 

grantees are asked to evaluate the technical assistance provided by the Full-service Community Schools 

(ESEA IV-F-2, section 4625) Program. The scores in this section ranged from 73 to 83. Grantees rated 

the effectiveness of technical assistance services in creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups low (73), indicating the desire of grantees to collaborate via learning groups may not be 

currently being satisfied. Consider adding more frequent opportunities for grantees to connect with one 

another to share best practices and lessoned learned. 

College Assistance Migrant Program

The satisfaction among grantees of the College Assistance Migrant Program was rated an 87, 2 points 

higher than the satisfaction rating in 2018 when the program last participated in the Grantee Satisfaction 

Survey. The CAMP satisfaction score of 87 makes this program the third highest scoring OESE program 

for 2020. There are five driver sections included in the survey for CAMP grantees, four of which were 

rated exceptionally well at 90 or higher. The ED Staff/Coordination survey sections asks grantees to 

evaluate the interactions they have had with federal staff, and with scores ranging from 91 to 97 the 

needs of grantees are largely being met by ED staff. Grantees of the CAMP rated the Documents, which 

include the written correspondence provided to grantees, a 91, tied for the highest scoring OESE program 

surveyed in 2020. Scores for each of the attributes that comprise the Documents driver improved 

between 6 and 9 points when comparing to the ratings received in 2018. Continue to provide clear, 

relevant, and comprehensive documentation to grantees in the coming months to maintain the highperformance scores achieved in 2020. The lowest scoring driver for CAMP grantees is Online Resources 

(83), which ask for evaluations of online resources on the OESE.ED.gov website. While the overall score 

of 83 is strong, opportunities to improve the grantee experience may be best focused towards the lower 

scoring components of the Online Resources driver section. The ease of finding materials online was 

rated an 81, indicating that slight adjustments to the website making grantees search of materials more 

effortless should be considered. The addition of clean links to the College Assistance Migrant Program 

home page that will route website users to the resources needed most frequently by CAMP grantees will 

make finding materials easier and less time consuming. Investigation into the most frequently requested 

resources or most frequently asked questions may be necessary to indicate which links should be 

presented to grantees on the programs home page. In the custom questions section of the survey CAMP 

grantees were asked, What could the CAMP team do to improve the structure or format of technical 

assistance? In the open-end feedback collected one respondent offered the following, “Use breakout 

rooms, easier to use software, and some videos from families we serve.” A full read-out of the verbatim 

feedback collected can be found in Appendix C. 

Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination

Grantees of the Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination Program were included in 

the survey for the first time in 2020. Their satisfaction was rated well at 72, however does lag behind the 

average satisfaction rating of all programs surveyed in 2020 which was rated a 78. All five drivers of 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 52

satisfaction that were measured were rated 80 or higher, with the ED Staff/Coordination driver topping the 

list with a score of 89. Federal staff received particularly high ratings for their knowledge of relevant 

legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures (90), sufficiency of legal guidance in responses (89), and 

the high level of professionalism (100) that staff display in their interactions with grantees. The 

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

rated an 82. A closer look at the individual components that comprise the Documents driver highlight the 

elements of the Documents that are most positively rated by grantees; organization of information (87) 

and clarity (85). While scores are generally strong for each of the five attributes, opportunities for 

improvements may be directed towards the Documents’ comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of 

issues that you face, which was the lowest scoring component at 77. Developing a relationship with 

grantees that includes an open line of communication will help ED staff to identify the issues specific to 

this programs grantees and provide the resources needed to offer assistance/guidance. In the initial year 

of measuring the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements, a rating of 81 was provided by Assistance 

for Arts Education Development and Dissemination Program grantees. The ease of submitting reports 

electronically was rated very favorably at 94, as was the availability of assistance in completing reports

which was rated an 89. The Technical Assistance driver was rated an 81, 2 points higher than the 

average rating of all programs surveyed in 2020. In the open-end feedback one grantee was 

complimentary of the amount of assistance and offered a suggestion for the future, “I think we receive an 

immense amount of assistance. Maybe it would be good to facilitate a Zoom based update session with 

all grantees once a year.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in Appendix C. 

In the custom questions section of the survey grantees were asked to evaluate the technical support and 

assistance they have received from the U.S. Department of Education staff and the technical assistance 

provider 2M Research. A high score of 92 was provided for grantees’ satisfaction with face-to-face AIE 

Annual Program Director’s Convening.

Alaskan Native Education Program

Satisfaction among grantees of the Alaskan Native Education Program was rated a 72, 3 points lower 

than the satisfaction score in 2018. The driver scores for the Alaskan Native Education Program range 

from 72 for Online Resources to 84 for ED Staff/Coordination. Federal staff were rated positively by 

grantees, especially for their knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures (91), 

sufficiency of legal guidance in responses (86), and professionalism (92). Efforts to improve upon the 

responsiveness to questions (74) will drive the ED Staff/Coordination rating for this program closer to 

scores reported at the aggregate level (87). Online Resources available on the OESE.ED.gov website 

that are specific to this program were rated a 72, which presents an opportunity for improvement to the 

overall grantee experience. The lowest rated attribute associated with the Online Resources driver was 

the ease of navigation, which was rated a 69. Look to declutter the resources on the website and provide 

clean links that will route website users to relevant and useful content specific to their program. In the 

initial year of measuring the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements, a rating of 73 was provided by 

ANEP grantees, 3 points less than the average rating of all programs surveyed in 2020. A high score of 

77 was given for the ease of obtaining data you are required to report, and a low score of 66 was given 

for the understanding of how ED uses your data. In the custom questions section of the survey grantees 

of the ANEP were asked how easy it was to locate and understand the information in the application 

package. High scores of 88 were provided for deadline for submission, page limitation instructions, and 

formatting instructions. When asked how easy it is to navigate the web-based annual performance report 

process grantees provided a rating of 63, the lowest scoring component in the custom questions section 

of the survey. 

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants

The satisfaction among grantees of the Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants Program was rated 

a 58, a 6-point improvement from the 2019 grantee satisfaction score. The increase in grantee 

satisfaction is due in part to the significant increase in the ED Staff/Coordination driver score, which 

climbed 11 points to an overall score of 83. Federal staff received significantly higher ratings for their 

knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures (86, +11) and responsiveness to 

your questions (81, +17) in 2020. The Online Resources diver score improved 4 points but remains to be 

the lowest scoring driver of satisfaction in 2020 landing at an overall score of 51. Scores for the individual 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 53

components measured in the Online Resources survey section are low, ranging from 45 to 58. The 

content specific to this program that is housed within the OESE.ED.gov website is seen as easy to 

navigate to by grantees as the ease of navigation score is 45 for the second consecutive year. Navigation 

enhancements to consider may include clean links that route website users to relevant information 

resources, tool tips that help users understand the quickest mode of exploration, and/or frequently ask 

questions links presented in plain sight for OESE.ED.gov website users. When evaluating the Documents 

including non-regulatory guidance, frequently asked questions (FAQs), letters, publications, and blast 

emails grantees provided a rating of 66, a 2-point score decrease compared to last year. The lowest 

scoring attribute of the Documents driver was for the comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of 

issues that you face (59). Research efforts to target the issues that are unique to the Supporting Effective 

Instruction State Grants Program will help in providing more comprehensive documentation to address 

grantees issues and lead them on a path to issue resolution. The ratings of the components asked in the 

custom questions section of the survey showed signs of improvement in 2020. The score for the 

effectiveness of the Department’s technical assistance activities in providing support that is responsive to 

my State’s needs to implement was rated 8 points higher in 2020 landing at a score of 67. 

21st Century Community Learning Centers

The 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program grantee satisfaction was rated an 80, a 6-point

score increase from the 2019 satisfaction rating. The satisfaction among 21st CCLC has improved an 

impressive 26 points in just five years, highlighting the effective changes made by federal/CCLC staff to 

improve the grantee experience. The ratings provided by 21st CCLC grantees in the ED Staff/

Coordination section of the survey highlight staff’s effectiveness in sharing knowledge of relevant 

legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures (91), offering Collaboration with other ED programs or 

offices in providing relevant services (87), all while displaying high levels of professionalism (95). The 

Online Resources driver section, which asks grantees to rate the content made available to the on the 

OESE.ED.gov website that is specific to their program, was rated 2 points higher compared to last year 

landing at an overall score of 71. A closer look at the attributes that comprise the Online Resources driver 

inform on the best avenues to pursue in efforts to drive scores to the levels reported at the aggregate 

level (75). The lowest scoring attribute, ability to accomplish what you want on the site, was rated a 70, 

leaving room for improvement. Attempts to obtain feedback from grantees regarding the most common 

commonly stated reasons for visiting the OESE.ED.gov website will aid in offering the correct resources 

to help grantees accomplish what they want. A new section was added to the survey in 2020 asking 

grantees to evaluate the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements. Grantees of the 21st CCLC 

program rated the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements driver an 81, 5 points higher than the 

average rating of all programs surveyed in 2020. Scores are relatively strong for the attributes that 

comprise the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements driver, ranging from 74 for the usefulness of 

the data to help you improve your grant program/project to 87 for the availability of assistance in 

completing your report(s). In the custom questions section of the survey, grantees are asked to evaluate 

the Department’s technical assistance activities to support your State in implementation of the grant 

program. The attribute score for providing support that is timely and responsive to State’s needs improved 

a significant 9 points in 2020 landing at a score of 86. Grantees rated their likelihood to recommend Y4Y 

website exceptionally high at 96 in 2020.

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7002)

The satisfaction among grantees of the Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7002) 

Program was rated an 84, a 1-point improvement from 2019. Grantee satisfaction has been trending 

upward since 2017 for this program and the satisfaction rating of 84 is a program-high score. The highest 

rated driver for the Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7002) Program grantees is ED 

Staff/Coordination with a strong score of 91. Scores for the individual attributes measured in this survey 

section were all strong, ranging from 89 for communication about changes that may affect your program

all the way up to 95 for the professionalism displayed by Federal staff in their interactions with grantees. 

The section of the survey that asks grantees to evaluate the Online Resources for their program-specific 

content available on the OESE.ED.gov website was rated favorably in 2020 with an overall driver score of 

83. The Online Resources driver score of 83 is 8 points higher than the average rating received for all 

programs surveyed in 2020. Improvements have been made in the past year for ease of finding materials 

online and ease of navigation, which each improved 4 points landing at scores of 82. In the open-end 

feedback, one respondent stated, “I am very pleased with the website,” further highlighting the fact that 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 54

the OESE.ED.gov website is an effective resource for grantees to utilize. A full read-out of the verbatim 

feedback collected can be found in Appendix C. In the custom questions section of the survey grantees 

were asked if they attended any webinars or in person meetings where IAP staff provided you information 

on the Section 7002 program, to which 61% indicated that they did participate. The participation in the 

webinars or in person meetings were hugely helpful to grantees as 98% indicated that the presentation 

and/or materials helped them to understand their responsibilities in submitting data. Eighty-four percent of 

respondents indicated that they used the written instruction and guidance documents provided for their

application, and this subset of respondents rated the effectiveness of documents in helping complete 

application an 84. 

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003)

The Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) Program grantee satisfaction score was 

rated a 78, mirroring the average satisfaction rating of all programs surveyed in 2020. The satisfaction 

rating of 78 reflects a 1-point decrease compared to the 2019 satisfaction rating however the strong score 

in 2020 is higher than the historically reported satisfaction scores for this program. The scores reported 

for the ED Staff/Coordination driver section illustrate the effectiveness of federal staff in sharing 

knowledge and providing sufficient guidance to grantees. The ED Staff/Coordination driver score is 88, 

with particularly strong attribute scores for ED staff’s professionalism (92) and their knowledge of relevant 

legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures (89). Efforts to improve the lowest rated attribute score, 

communication about changes that may affect your program (84), that is associated with the ED 

Staff/Coordination driver may include being more proactive in reaching out to grantees to inform them on 

upcoming changes to prepare for. The Online Resources specific to this program that are housed within 

the OESE.ED.gov website were rated more favorably in 2020 compared to 2019 as the driver score 

improved 4 points to an overall score of 79. Scores improved for the ease of finding materials online (79, 

+6), ability to accomplish what you want on the site (80, +4), and ease of navigation (76, +2). A new

question was added to the Online Resources section of the survey asking grantees to evaluate the quality

of content on the OESE.ED.gov website, to which a strong rating of 81 was provide. In the open-end

feedback, one grantee of the Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) Program stated,

“The website is better than it used to be,” highlighting the fact that improvements are being made and

recognized by users of the website. A full read-out of the verbatim feedback collected can be found in

Appendix C. The custom question section of the survey includes a question that asks grantees if they

contacted the Impact Aid Program for technical assistance, to which 67% of respondents said that they

had. These respondents who did contact the Impact Aid Program for technical assistance rated the staff

exceptionally well for their responsiveness to answering questions (88), supportiveness in helping you

complete your application (91), and knowledge about technical material (90).

Comprehensive Literacy State Development

The Comprehensive Literacy State Development Program grantee satisfaction was rated a 79, a 7-point

score decrease compared to 2019. The satisfaction rating of 79 is a relatively strong score and is 1 point 

higher than the average satisfaction rating of all programs surveyed in 2020. The ED Staff/Coordination 

driver score dropped 2 points in 2020 however remains to be a positively rated component with an overall 

score of 90. A closer look into the attribute scores that comprise the ED Staff/Coordination driver inform 

that federal staff have opportunities for improvement in their responsiveness to questions (82). Ensure 

that grantee inquiries are responded to in a timely manner and include accurate and current information 

that will aid in improvement efforts to the overall grantee experience. In the Documents section of the 

survey, grantees are asked to evaluate the Documents which include non-regulatory guidance, frequently 

asked questions (FAQs), letters, publications, and blast emails. Scores are very strong for the Documents 

driver (91) and the attribute that comprise the driver, all of which were rated in the low-90s. Just five years 

ago the Documents driver was rated a 42, indicating that substantial improvements have been made over 

time in providing relevant, comprehensive, and clear documents in a well-organized fashion. A new 

section was added to the survey in 2020 asking for grantees to evaluate the Grant Performance 

Reporting Requirements. The Grant Performance Reporting Requirements driver score was rated an 82 

in the initial year of measurement, 1 point higher than the average rating provided by all programs 

participating in the survey in 2020. The custom questions section of the survey asks grantees to evaluate 

the technical assistance from their SRCL program officer. Scores were relatively strong within this survey 

section ranging from 83 for timely resolution of general programmatic and financial issues and on the high 

end, the virtual CLSD Project Directors’ National Convening was rated an impressive 93. 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 55

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies 

The satisfaction among grantees of the Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies 

Program was rated a 77, a 2-point improvement over the past year. The ED Staff/Coordination section of 

the survey asks grantees to evaluate their interactions with the federal staff and the scores ranging from 

83 to 92 indicate that the information and guidance that is provided by ED staff is largely meeting the 

needs of Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies grantees. ED staff were rated 

especially positively for their knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures (88) 

and responsiveness to questions (86). The ratings of the Online Resources available on the 

OESE.ED.gov website show strong signs of improvement in 2020, as the driver score improved 8 points 

to an overall score of 79. Each of the components associated with the Online Resources driver that trend 

back to 2019 improved by statistically significant margins: ease of finding materials online (78, +10), 

ability to accomplish what you want on the site (81, +10) and ease of navigation (80, +10). A new section 

was added to the survey in 2020 asking for grantees to evaluate the Grant Performance Reporting 

Requirements. In the initial year of measurement, grantees of the Indian Education Formula Grants to 

Local Education Agencies Program rated this driver a 77. Scores are relatively strong for the individual 

components measured in this section, but an opportunity for improvement exists in providing grantees 

with a better understanding of how ED uses your data (68). In the custom questions section of the survey, 

grantees were asked to evaluate the application process when applying for a grant through the Electronic 

Application System for Indian Education (EASIE). Scores were relatively strong for this survey section for 

all three components: comprehensiveness of documents (86), ease of using EASIE system (84), and 

quality of training via webinars (81). 

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C)

The Migrant Education Program (Title I, Part C) grantee satisfaction was rated a 78, a 1-point decrease 

from 2019 but still holding a positive score overall. The overall satisfaction rating of 78 for the Migrant 

Education program grantees matches the average satisfaction rating of all programs surveyed in 2020. 

Federal staff were rated relatively positively in the ED Staff/Coordination (85) section of the survey 

however attribute levels scores do highlight areas to consider focusing improvement efforts towards. The 

responsiveness to questions attribute score dropped 10 points in 2020 to a score of 73, indicating that ED 

staff should work to provide responses to grantee inquiries in a timelier manner and responses should be 

accurate and informative. Grantees rated the sufficiency of legal guidance in responses a significant 10 

points lower in 2020, again highlighting the need for ED staff to adjust their follow-up communication with 

grantees to better meet the needs of grantees and improve the overall grantee experience. The Online 

Resources specific to the Migrant Education Program that are made available to grantees on the 

OESE.ED.gov website were rated a 74, a 6-point score decrease compared to 2019. Grantees rated the 

ease of navigation a 72 (-7 from 2019 score), which is the lowest scoring attribute related to the Online 

Resources driver. Navigation enhancements to consider may include clean links that route website users 

to relevant information resources, tool tips that help users understand the quickest mode of exploration, 

and/or frequently ask questions links presented in plain sight for OESE.ED.gov website users. In the 

custom questions section of the survey grantees were asked to select three technical assistance topics 

that will be needed in the future, in order to improve the performance of your MEP. The top three topics 

selected were Subrecipient Monitoring (41%), Fiscal Requirements (26%) and Data Management and 

Reporting (26%).

Education for Homeless Children and Youth – McKinney-Vento

The satisfaction among grantees of the Education for Homeless Children and Youth program was rated 

an 85, the fourth highest satisfaction rating among all OESE programs that participated in the survey in 

2020. The grantee satisfaction score of 85 reflects a 6-point improvement from 2019. Although the Online 

Resources (grantees rated the content specific to the Education for Homeless Children and Youth 

program housed within the OESE.ED.gov website) is the lowest scoring driver for this program, the driver 

score significantly improved to an overall score of 80, a strong score relative to the other programs 

involved in the 2020 Grantee Satisfaction Survey. The ease of navigation score increased 16 points in 

2020, indicating that enhancements were made to the navigation of the OESE.ED.gov website made a 

positive impact for grantees. The highest scoring driver in 2020 for the Education for Homeless Children 

and Youth program is ED Staff/Coordination, landing at an overall score of 93. The attributes that 

comprise the ED Staff/Coordination driver score all performed exceptionally well with scores ranging from 

92 to 96. Federal staff displayed high levels of knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 56

procedures (94, +4) and were responsive to grantee questions (93, +9). Grantees were asked to rate the 

technical assistance services provided by the Education for Homeless Children and Youth program staff 

in helping you successfully learn to implement your grant programs/projects, to which a rating of 84 was 

provided. The Technical Assistance score of 84 is 5 points higher than the OESE score for 2020. 

Opportunities for improvements to the Technical Assistance that is provided to grantees exist in creating 

opportunities to share best practices via learning groups as indicated by the lowest attribute score, 81, 

associated with the Technical Assistance driver score. In the custom questions section grantees were 

asked to evaluate the technical assistance provided by U.S. Department of Education program staff and 

the National Center for Homeless Education (NCHE). The ratings for the NCHE were higher in 2020 than 

ratings provided for the U.S. Department of Education program staff indicating that NCHE staff are more 

effective than ED staff in meeting the Technical Assistance needs of grantees. 

Student Support and Academic Enrichment 

The Student Support and Academic Enrichment grantee satisfaction score was rated a 75, a significant 

24 points higher than the ratings received in 2019. All component scores that trend back to 2019 

improved in the past year, most notably the ED Staff/Coordination driver score improved 20 points to an 

overall score of 82. Over the last year Federal staff have made significant improvements to their 

responsiveness to questions (77, +23), knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and 

procedures (84, +16) and collaboration with other ED programs or offices in providing relevant services 

(77, +20). The Documents driver is the second highest scoring driver of satisfaction, behind ED 

Staff/Coordination, after this driver improved 11 points to an overall score of 80. Adjustments/updates 

made to the documents in terms of the comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues that 

grantees face were well received by grantees in 2020 as this attribute score jumped 19 points to a score 

of 76. All attribute scores associated with the Documents driver showed signs of improvement over the 

past year, and with scores in the upper-70s to low-80s efforts to maintain the strong scores should be 

considered. The Grant Performance Reporting Requirements driver was added to the Grantee 

Satisfaction Survey in 2020, and in its initial year of measurement the driver score was rated a 64 by 

Student Support and Academic Enrichment grantees. The average rating for all OESE programs for the 

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements driver was a 76, indicating that grantees of the Student 

Support and Academic Enrichment program provided below-average ratings of the new driver. 

Particularly low scores were provided for the usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project (55) and grantee understanding of how ED uses their data (54). In an effort to improve 

these low attribute scores ED staff should investigate the data that is being provided to grantees of this 

program to ensure that the data is applicable in assisting them to improve the grant program/project. 

Additionally, ED staff should look to share feedback with grantees on their submitted reports so that it can 

benefit both the department and the future experiences of grantees. The National Center on Safe 

Supportive Learning Environments (NCSSLE) website was rated a 73 by grantees of the Student Support 

and Academic Enrichment program in the custom questions section of the survey, a relatively strong 

score in its initial year of measurement. Grantees found the Title IV Part A Portal to be quite useful as this 

component was granted a strong score of 84.

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies - Title I 

The satisfaction among grantees of the Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational 

Agencies - Title I program was rated a 64, a 5-point improvement since 2019. The ED Staff/Coordination 

driver has historically been a strength for this program and in 2020 that trend continues with an overall 

score of 79. Federal staff display high levels of Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures as grantees rated this component an 81. ED staff have opportunities for improvement in 

their responsiveness to questions. This attribute was rated just a 66 by grantees, indicating that staff 

could make improvements in providing more timely responses. The Documents provided to grantees 

(including non-regulatory guidance, FAQs, letters, publications, and blast emails) were rated significantly 

higher in 2020. The Documents driver score improved 10 points in the past year to an overall score of 79, 

making it tied with ED Staff/Coordination for the highest scoring driver in 2020. Each of the attributes 

related to the Documents driver improved in 2020 and with scores in the upper-70s to low-80s efforts to 

maintain high scores should be exercised. A new section was added to the Grantee Satisfaction Survey 

in 2020 asking grantees to evaluate the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements. In the initial year of 

measurement, the driver score for Grant Performance Reporting Requirements was rated a 63 by Title I 

grantees, leaving room for improvement. One area to address in efforts to improve the Grant 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 57

Performance Reporting Requirements driver and ultimately the grantee experience is to better explain 

how ED uses grantee data (54). In the custom questions section of the survey a low score of 65 was 

provided by grantees for the survey question regarding how department staff provide support that is 

responsive to State’s needs to implement. An effort to better understand the specific needs of the State 

will help staff to more effectively administer support that assists in implementation. 

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

The English Language Acquisition State Grants grantee satisfaction score was rated a 63, a 2-point

increase from 2019. The increase in satisfaction reflects positive changes made in the past year after the 

grantee satisfaction fell 7 points from 2018 to 2019. All three drivers of satisfaction that were previously 

measured experienced score increases in 2020. The ED Staff/Coordination driver is the highest scoring 

at 79, a 5-point score increase. Federal staff displayed high levels of knowledge of relevant legislation, 

regulations, policies, and procedures as this component of the ED Staff/Coordination driver increased by 

statistically significant margins in 2020 scoring an 82 (+9). The lowest scoring attribute of the ED 

Staff/Coordination driver was the responsiveness to questions (71). A ‘quick win’ may be available to 

improve the grantee experience if ED staff make a concerted effort to respond to grantee inquiries in an 

expedient manner, while maintaining accuracy and thoughtfulness in responses. The Online Resources 

specific to this program’s content on the OESE.ED.gov website were rated more favorably by grantees in 

all attributes previously measured by the survey. Grantees rated the ability to accomplish what they 

wanted on the site a significant 12 points higher than last year with a 2020 rating of 71. The ease of 

navigation score improved 8 points to a 68 but remains one of the lowest scoring attributes of the Online 

Resources driver. Look to make further enhancements to the navigation of the OESE.ED.gov website 

with some thought around the reasons that grantees most frequently utilize the website. Navigation 

enhancements may include clean links that route website users to relevant information resources, and/or 

frequently ask questions links presented in plain sight for OESE.ED.gov website users. With an overall 

score of 76, the Documents driver received an all-time high rating from the English Language Acquisition 

State Grants grantees. High scores of 79 for the organization of information and relevance to your areas 

of need are particularly strong relative to the other attribute scores associated with the Documents driver. 

The lowest scoring attribute within the Documents driver, comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of 

issues that you face (68), may be improved upon if investigation into the specific issues of English 

Language Acquisition State Grants grantees is carried out. When asked, 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 in the custom questions section of the survey, one respondent commented on the desire for 

more webinars. 

Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP)

Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) Program

The satisfaction among grantees of the REAP – Rural and Low-Income School Program rose 5 points for 

the second consecutive year, landing at an overall satisfaction score of 77. The REAP – Rural and LowIncome School Program grantee satisfaction began its upward trend back in 2017 and since that time has 

improved an impressive 13 points. The upward score trend was not limited to satisfaction, as each of the 

three drivers that were asked in the 2019 survey improved over the past year as well. The ED Staff/

Coordination driver continues to be the highest rated driver with an overall score of 90, a 6-point score 

increase compared to 2019. Federal staff made significant improvements over the past year in their 

responsiveness to questions (87, +8) and Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and 

procedures (90, +8). The Online Resources driver, which asks grantees to rate the content made 

available to the on the OESE.ED.gov website that is specific to their program, was the most improved 

driver in 2020 scoring 78 (+8). Three new attributes were added to the Online Resources driver section in 

2020 and were all rated strong in the initial year of measurement: quality of content (79), accuracy of 

search results (77) and look and feel/visual appearance (80). In the custom questions section of the 

survey REAP – RLIS grantees were asked which topics for technical assistance they will need in the 

future in order to improve the performance of their RLIS grant. The top three topics selected were 

Providing Technical Assistance to Grantees (48%), Monitoring RLIS grantees (45%) and REAP eligibility 

data and estimating award amounts (39%). 

Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP)

Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 58

The REAP – Small, Rural School Achievement Program grantee satisfaction score was rated an 83, a 

significant 7 points higher than the rating received in 2019. When asked How satisfied are you with ED’s 

products and services grantees provided a noteworthy rating of 88. The needs of REAP – Small, Rural 

School Achievement Program grantees are largely being met by Federal staff as the ED Staff/

Coordination driver score notably improved to a 90 overall, and four of the six attribute that comprise the 

driver score were rated 90 or higher. Federal staff have made significant improvements in terms of their 

responsiveness to questions (91), knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures

(90) and sufficiency of legal guidance in responses (93). The Online Resources driver score improved a

significant 8 points in 2020 to an overall score of 78. The scores provided for the Online Resources

attributes that range from 76 to 80 indicate that the content specific to the REAP – SRSA program

grantees is being provided in an easily accessible manner and is of high quality. A new section was

added to the Grantee Satisfaction Survey in 2020 asking grantees to evaluate the Grant Performance

Reporting Requirements. In the initial year of measurement, the driver score for Grant Performance

Reporting Requirements was rated an 80 by the REAP – SRSA grantees. A high score of 85 was

provided for the ease of submitting report(s) electronically. The low score of 72 for grantees

understanding of how ED uses your data offers room for improvement. In the custom questions section of

the survey REAP – SRSA grantees were asked rate their experience with the revised FY 2020 SRSA

application process as compared to the process in previous years. Scores were very strong for the

attributes measured in this survey section with particularly high scores for the ease of accessing the

application using the unique link in the invitation email (88), preparing and completing the information

requested on the application (88), ease of submitting the application (90), and utilizing the confirmation

email (89). The application process is seen as an improved version compared to previous years, and

efforts to maintain the process improvements should be made.

Grants for State Assessments

The Grants for State Assessments grantee satisfaction score was rated a 76, a 1-point improvement from 

2019. The increase in grantee satisfaction was accompanied by an increase in driver scores for each of 

the three components that were measured in last years survey. The survey section asking grantees to 

evaluate ED Staff/Coordination illuminates the hard work displayed by Federal staff to provide grantees 

with relevant information regarding legislation, regulations, policies and procedures (94, +7) and a high 

level of responsiveness to questions (94, +12). The high performance scores ranging from 87 to 96 that 

grantees provided when answering survey questions in the ED Staff/Coordination survey section explains 

that their needs are largely being met by ED staff and efforts to maintain scores should be considered. 

The Online Resources specific to the Grants for State Assessments made available to grantees on the 

OESE.ED.gov website was rated a 76, a 2 point improvement from the rating received in the 2019 

survey. A new rated question was added to the Online Resources survey section that asks grantees to 

rate the Quality of content of resources on the OESE.ED.gov website, to which grantees provided a 

strong score of 80 in the initial measurement of this component. Efforts to improve upon the Online 

Resources driver score, look to improve the Ease of navigation as this attribute leaves room for score 

improvements with an overall score of 71, the lowest scoring attribute of Online Resources. Navigation 

enhancements may include clean links that route website users to relevant information resources, tool 

tips that help users understand the quickest mode of exploration, and/or frequently ask questions links 

presented in plain sight for OESE.ED.gov website users. The custom questions section of the survey 

asks Grants for State Assessments grantees to rate the effectiveness of technical assistance activities to 

support your State in implementation of Grants for State Assessments. The four rated questions in this 

section were all rated higher in 2020 compared to 2019, with the Helps address implementation 

challenges rating improving the most to a score of 83 (+8). 

Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants

Satisfaction among respondents of the Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants Program was rated 

a 75; 3 points less than the combined average rating of all programs surveyed in 2020. A closer look at 

the TSL data shows that satisfaction was rated much higher by those who were listed in the ‘TIF’ cohort 

(98) than those in the ‘TSL’ cohort (68). The scores discussed in this report will focus on the combination

of the two segments as the sample sizes for each cohort designation are quite low. The Online

Resources driver score improved a significant 18 points compared to last year landing at an overall driver

score of 88; the highest rated driver of satisfaction among this program’s grantees. The content on the

OESE.ED.gov website was rated exceptionally well with scores in the upper-80s to low-90s. Significant
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 59

improvements have been made over the past year in the collective opinion of grantees in the following 

areas: ease of finding materials online (88, +17), ability to accomplish what you want on the site (87, 

+17), and the ease of navigation (89, +19). This program’s grantees’ needs are being satisfied by the 

resources made available to them on the OESE.ED.gov website as displayed by the strong performance 

scores. The ED Staff/Coordination driver score remained unchanged in 2020 with a score of 81. Federal 

staff are effective in their efforts to share knowledge and provide guidance to grantees of the program. 

One component of the ED Staff/Coordination survey section that may provide an opportunity to improve 

scores for ED Staff is the communication about changes that may affect your program as this attribute 

was rated a 74. Proactive communication regarding changes that will directly affect their program will help 

to improve grantees view of the level of care that ED staff exhibits. In the custom questions section of the 

survey, grantees are asked to evaluate the technical support and assistance they have received from the 

TQP TA provider, AEM. The scores for the components of this section show improvement over the past 

year: assistance in improving program planning and implementation (87, +15), providing relevant 

information and ideas (90, +18), and connecting you with other experts or practitioners (88, +10). The 

high scores provided by this program’s grantees regarding the technical support and assistance they

have received indicate that no current weaknesses exist and the processes currently in place should be 

maintained.

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program

The Supporting Effective Educator Development Program grantee satisfaction score was rated a 57, 

reflecting a score decrease of 11 points compared 2019. The decrease in grantee satisfaction is in part 

due to the significant decline in scores for ED Staff/Coordination. After receiving a strong score of 80 in 

the initial survey measurement the ED Staff/Coordination driver dropped 12 points to an overall score of 

68. A closer look into the components that comprise the driver reveal the need for federal staff to 

communicate more effectively with grantees about changes that may affect their program as this attribute 

was rated a 56. Another area to focus improvement efforts is the collaboration with other ED programs or 

offices in providing relevant services which was rated 20 points lower in 2020 landing at a 57. Ensure that 

the services made available to SEED grantees are relevant and useful to their specific needs. The 

Documents driver score fell a significant 20 points to an overall score of 59. Each of the five attributes that 

are associated with the Documents driver decreased by statistically significant margins. The data reveals 

the necessity for the unique needs of SEED grantees to be better understood as scores for the sufficiency 

of detail to meet your program needs (59), relevance to your areas of need (58) and comprehensiveness 

in addressing the scope of issues that you face (50) are particularly low scoring. Instead of providing 

extensive generic documentation, attempt to create more program specific documentation that will prove 

more useful in addressing the specific needs/issues of grantees. A new section was added to the Grantee 

Satisfaction Survey in 2020 asking grantees to evaluate the Grant Performance Reporting Requirements.

Grantees of the SEED program rated this driver a 52; with a particularly low rating provided for grantees 

understanding of how ED uses your data (33). 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. Grantees indicate that gaining helpful technical assistance to conduct meaningful, 

rigorous evaluations was easier than implementing a meaningful, rigorous evaluation, scoring 54 and 48, 

respectively. In regard to the assistance grantees have received from the TQP TA Center/Mathematica/

AEM, grantees provided a strong rating for connecting you with other experts or practitioners (72).

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

Schools

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

Schools Program rated their satisfaction a 48. The score of 48 makes this program the lowest rated 

OESE program in terms of grantee satisfaction. Investigation into the data will help to inform the areas 

that present the greatest opportunity for improvements. When asked about the collaboration with other 

ED programs or offices in providing relevant services offered by federal staff grantees provided a rating of 

44, which highlights the necessity of improving the collaboration practices currently in place. Some of the 

other attributes that comprise the ED Staff/Coordination driver that warrant changes include the federal 

staff’s knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures (62, -19) and sufficiency of 

legal guidance in responses (50, -27). Adjustments made in these areas of the grantee experience will 

help to stop the score declines recognized from 2019 to 2020. The scores for the Online Resources 

specific to the Grantees of the Charter Schools Program Grants for Replication and Expansion of High-
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 60

Quality Charter Schools Program on the OESE.ED.gov website remain stable when comparing to 2019, 

but opportunities to improve upon scores do exist as scores in this section of the survey range from 51 to 

61. New questions were added to the Online Resources section of the survey in 2020 asking grantees to 

rate the quality of content and accuracy of search results. In the initial measurement of these attributes 

grantees provided low scores of 53 for quality of content and 51 for the accuracy of search results. 

Enhancements made to the website that allow grantees to effectively navigate the website to obtain 

information intuitively by following clean links to relevant resources commonly used. Additionally, audit the 

resources available online to ensure that information is up to date. A new section was added to the 

Grantee Satisfaction Survey in 2020 asking grantees to evaluate the Grant Performance Reporting 

Requirements, which was rated a 40. Low scores provided by grantees when responding to this section 

of the survey for Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant program/project (36) and 

understanding of how ED uses your data (31) express the need for ED to better explain how the data is 

used by the Department. In the custom question section of the survey grantees rated the Guidance CSP 

provides on Federal grant compliance particularly low with a score of 46. An improved approach to the 

way in which grantees receive guidance from the CSP or adjustments to the components of the 

information that provided is recommended.

Expanding Opportunities Through Quality Charter Schools Program

The satisfaction among grantees of the Expanding Opportunities Through Quality Charter Schools 

Program was rated a 71, an improvement of 9 points compared to 2019. The survey question asking 

grantees How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services was rated a significant 12 points higher 

in 2020 landing at an overall score of 80. Driver score increases in 2020 in areas such as ED Staff/

Coordination and Online Resources drove satisfaction ratings higher for this program. Federal staff have 

made effective adjustments in the past year, most notably in their knowledge of relevant legislation, 

regulations, policies, and procedures, which was rated 20 points higher in 2020 landing at 92. 

Improvements in the staff’s responsiveness to questions and collaboration with other ED programs or 

offices in providing relevant services is highlighted by the double-digit score increases for both attributes 

over the past year. The ratings of the Online Resources available on the OESE.ED.gov website show 

strong signs of improvement as well. The driver score climbed 16 points in 2020 to an overall score of 73, 

due to significant score increases for; ease of finding materials online (76, +18), ability to accomplish what 

you want on the site (71, +16), and ease of navigation (69, +17). The Documents provided to grantees 

were rated a 74, a 4-point improvement year-over-year. A closer look at the attributes that make up the 

Documents driver inform on areas best suited for improvement opportunities: sufficiency of detail to meet 

your program needs (69) and comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues that you face (67). 

Focusing efforts on gaining a better understanding of the specific needs and issues that the CSP possess 

will allow for a targeted approach to the grantee experience. The custom questions asked of grantees 

associated with the Expanding Opportunities Through Quality Charter Schools Program reflect positive 

change compared to last year. The component’s that experienced the most growth year-over-year are

technical assistance received on project implementation and budget questions (84, +19) and 

dissemination of resources and opportunities the CSP provides (78, +18). 

Education Innovation and Research Programs

Grantees of the Education Innovation and Research Programs rated their satisfaction a 74, just 1-point 

lower than the satisfaction score received in the programs initial year of participation in the Grantee 

Satisfaction Survey. The federal staff who work with grantees of the Education Innovation and Research 

Programs received high marks for the levels service that they provide. Specifically, grantees rated ED 

Staff well for their communication about changes that may affect their program (87) and the 

professionalism (93) that is displayed by ED staff. The ED Staff/Coordination driver is the highest scoring 

in 2020, and the individual attribute scores that comprise the driver all scored in the 80s indicating that 

federal staff should work to maintain the high scores earned in 2020. The Online Resources that are 

specific to the Education Innovation and Research Program on the OESE.ED.gov website were rated a 

71; the lowest scoring driver for this program, making it a candidate for prioritized improvement efforts. 

The attribute level scores for this driver are all in the low-70s which allows for targeted strategies to 

improve the ratings provided by grantees. Updates or changes made that will aid in grantees ease of 

finding materials on the OESE.ED.gov website will prove useful in improving upon the grantee 

experience. The Documents driver score dropped 2 points in 2020 landing at an overall score of 72. 

Grantees were less satisfied with Documents in terms of the sufficiency of detail to meet program needs 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 61

in 2020 as this attribute score fell 6 points to a score of 71. Additionally, the relevance to areas of need 

(70) and comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues that grantees face (70) scores suggest 

that a better understanding of the specific needs/issues that grantees of the Education Innovation and 

Research Programs face will inform the necessary adjustments to make to improve upon the ratings for 

the Documents that are provided. In the custom questions section of the survey grantees of the Education 

Innovation and Research Programs were asked to evaluate the i3/EIR Evaluation Technical 

Assistance/Abt Associates. High scores of 86 for the assistance in improving your evaluation planning 

and implementation and providing relevant information and ideas indicate that the technical support and 

assistance that grantees receive from i3/EIR Evaluation Technical Assistance/Abt Associates is helpful 

and informative. The low score of 64 for the question asking about the i3/EIR program level evaluations in 

implementing a meaningful, rigorous evaluation highlights the need for improvements in this area of the 

grantee experience.

Magnet Schools Assistance Program

The satisfaction among grantees of the Magnet Schools Assistance Program was rated a 79, 1 point 

higher than the average satisfaction rating among all programs surveyed. Grantees rated their 

interactions with federal staff particularly high, with an overall score of 87. ED Staff/Coordination attribute 

scores ranging from 79 to 96 indicate that needs of grantees are being satisfied by ED staff for grantees 

of the Magnet Schools Assistance Program. The Online Resources specific to this program’s content on 

the OESE.ED.gov website was the lowest rated driver of satisfaction in 2019 with an overall score of 75. 

In 2020, this score increased 8 points to an overall score of 83, indicating that updates/improvements 

implemented on the ED.gov website specific to this program have improved the grantee experience in 

terms of the resources made available to them online. The Technical Assistance services that grantees 

receive from the Magnet Schools Assistance Program were rated an 82 overall. While the overall score of 

82 for Technical Assistance does not inform weaknesses exist, a closer look at the attributes comprising 

this score allow for adjustments to be considered in areas that offer opportunity for improvement. 

Adjustments made to the approach of ED-Funded TA Providers to increase the helpfulness in grantees 

learning to implement their grant project will assist in improving the Technical Assistance services 

provided by ED staff. When asked what ways the technical assistance that Department staff provide be 

improved to better support your program needs one respondent spoke to the importance of individualized 

assistance, “TA is not individualized and/or differentiated. I find that most of the sessions are at a basic 

level which is sometimes appropriate for us, but often not. There is almost no opportunity for peer 

sharing, except at the project directors' meeting. Pieces of those meetings are helpful, but there are still 

too many large group sessions that are primarily meaningless.” A full read-out of the verbatim feedback 

collected can be found in Appendix C. In the custom question section of the survey grantees rated the 

MSAP Center technical assistance support well (86) but provided a relatively low score when rating the 

GRADS 360 system (62). 

Promise Neighborhoods

The Promise Neighborhoods grantee satisfaction score was rated a 79, a 1-point improvement since the 

initial year of measurement for the grant program in 2019. The satisfaction score of 79 is 1 point higher 

than the average satisfaction rating among all surveyed programs in 2020. Signs of improvement for the 

Promise Neighborhoods program were not limited to satisfaction as all three drivers of satisfaction that 

were measured in 2019 also improved. Interactions with federal staff are optimal, with an ED Staff/

Coordination score of 93. Of the six attributes that comprise the ED Staff/Coordination driver, five were 

rated 90 or higher, with professionalism topping the list with a score of 96. The score for the Online 

Resources specific to this program’s content on the OESE.ED.gov website improved a significant 15 

points to an overall score of 78. The driver score increase is a result of the improvements made in 

grantees’ ease of finding materials online (81) and ease of navigation (78) increasing 19 and 17 points, 

respectively. The Documents provided by the Promise Neighborhoods program satisfied the needs of 

grantees, especially in terms of clarity (87) and sufficiency of detail to meet program needs (86). The 

Technical Assistance services that are provided by Promise Neighborhoods staff were strong in 2020 with 

an overall score of 80; 1-point higher than the average Technical Assistance rating among all OESE 

programs surveyed. High scores of 90 for creating opportunities to share best practices via learning 

groups and ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to implement grant project indicate that 

grantees are complimentary of learning opportunities that are offered to them by ED staff. The custom 

questions asked only of grantees of the Promise Neighborhoods grant program were generally strong in 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 62

2020 but do offer opportunities for improving the grantee experience. Opportunities for improvement 

include the SCORECARD and GRADS 360 systems scoring 65 and 52, respectively. Program leadership 

should work to maintain the high performance of service and guidance while narrowing focus in the areas 

that offer the highest opportunity for improving the grantee experience. 

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 77, which reflects a notable 16-point increase compared to one year 

ago. The significant increase in the satisfaction score was largely driven by the significant increase in 

each of the three driver scores that were included in the 2019 version of the survey. ED Staff/

Coordination is the highest scoring driver in 2020 with an overall score of 85. The strong attribute scores 

that comprise the ED Staff/Coordination driver range from 78 for the responsiveness to questions to 90 

for the professionalism displayed by ED Staff. The ratings provided by grantees for the Documents 

section of survey indicate that there have been noticeable improvements made over the past year. The 

driver score for Documents improved significantly in 2020 landing at a score of 78. Grantees were 

especially pleased with the organization of information (80) and the relevance to their areas of need (79). 

Grantees of the Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects Demonstration Grants rated 

the Online Resources on the OESE.ED.gov website a 70 in 2020; 7 points lower than the OESE score. 

Efforts to improve grantees ability to accomplish what they indented on the site (66) will assist in 

improving the driver score. A new section was added to the survey in 2020 asking grantees about 

reporting requirements. A closer look at the attributes comprising this score show relative strengths and 

opportunities for improvement. The high score of 75 indicates that grantees find the data useful in efforts 

to make improvements to the grant program/project. Providing grantees with a better understanding of 

how ED uses their data will help to improve the grantee experience, as this attribute was the lowest rated 

component in 2020 at 62. The custom questions section of the survey asked grantees to evaluate the 

Native Youth Community Projects (NYCP) program. Grantees provided positive feedback when rating the 

NYCP program with scores improving for each of the three rated questions asked in the custom question 

section. Grantees were especially pleased with the usefulness and relevance of project director meeting 

technical assistance with a score of 84, followed closely by the webinar-based technical assistance score 

of 80.

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs

The satisfaction score provided by grantees of the Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency 

Programs improved an impressive 22 points from 2019 to 2020, landing at an overall score of 77. The 

grantee satisfaction score of 77 marks the highest score achieved for the Neglected and Delinquent State 

and Local Agency Programs since the program was first included in the survey back in 2011. ED Staff/

Coordination was the highest scoring driver of satisfaction in 2020 at an overall score of 83 (+15). Over 

the past year organizational efforts to increase the knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures has been effectively carried out as displayed by the significant 19-point increase in the 

attribute score. Grantees of the Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs rated the 

professionalism displayed by ED Staff exceptionally well in the first year of measuring this component, 

scoring 89. Grantees of the Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs rated the Online 

Resources available on the OESE.ED.gov website a 72 in 2020, which is a significant 14 points higher 

than the 2019 driver score. It is evident that grantees were much more pleased with their level of success 

in accomplishing what they intended on the OESE.ED.gov website (72, +15) and were able to navigate 

the site with relative ease (75, +14). Efforts to improve the accuracy of search results (69) and ease of 

finding materials online (70) may prove fruitful in attempts to drive the Online Resources driver score 

higher to match scores achieved at the OESE principal office level (77). The custom questions asking 

grantees to evaluate the technical assistance provided by both NDTAC and USDE staff show signs of 

improvement when comparing 2019 to 2020. Specifically, grantees rated the USDE staff much higher in 

2020 regarding staff’s ability to assist in impacting performance results/goals scoring a 74, which is a 

significant score increase of 17 points compared to 2019. The NDTAC staff were rated exceptionally well 

for their guidance provided to meet program compliance requirements with a score of 87; the highest 

rated custom question asked of Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs grantees.

School Climate Transformation Grants

Local Education Agency
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 63

The satisfaction score among SCTG Local Education Agency respondents improved to a score of 82 in 

2020; an increase of 5 points compared to the 2019 satisfaction score. All three of the driver’s that were 

measured for SCTG – LEA grantees in both 2019 and 2020 showed significant improvement year-overyear. The ED Staff/Coordination driver score rebounded substantially to a score of 93 making it the 

highest rated driver of satisfaction among SCTG – LEA grantees. Each of the attributes that comprise the 

ED Staff/Coordination driver scored 88 or higher indicating that there are no prominent weaknesses to 

address at this time. After a substantial decrease of 23 points in 2019, the 2020 score for Online 

Resources available on the OESE.ED.gov website improved a significant 16 points to 83. New questions 

were added to this section in 2020, including the quality of content (85) and the look and feel of the site 

(84). All attribute scores being rated 80 and higher indicates that grantees needs are largely being met by 

the resources provided to them on the OESE.ED.gov website. However, efforts to maintain or perhaps 

improve upon the ability of grantees to accomplish what they want on the OESE.ED.gov website should 

be considered as resources needed by grantees may shift over time and the website functionality is 

expected to be improved upon over time. The Technical Assistance that is provided by ED-Funded 

technical assistance providers is extremely helpful to grantees in learning to implement their grant project 

as grantees rated this component a 92 in 2020. The overall Technical Assistance driver score is strong 

for SCTG – LEA grantees in 2020 landing at 84; 5 points higher than the aggregate Technical Assistance 

score for all programs measured in 2020. A new section, Grant Performance Reporting Requirements, 

was added to the Grantee Satisfaction Survey in 2020. SCTG Local Education Agency respondents rated 

the new section strong at 82, which is 6 points higher than the score achieved by all OESE programs 

collectively. Grantees have an extremely high level of Trust in the SCTG – LEA office to meet 

organizational needs (92) and focus should be applied in maintaining the high level of trust that has been 

earned. 

School Climate Transformation Grants

State Education Agency

The SCTG State Education Agency grantee satisfaction was rated an 83, which reflects an increase of 4 

points in satisfaction compared to the last year in which this program was surveyed in 2018. The five

drivers of satisfaction were rated very positively by SCTG – SEA grantees, with scores ranging from 84 

for the Documents driver to 88 for both Technical Assistance and ED Staff/Coordination. Federal staff 

were rated very positively for their interactions with grantees regarding their Responsiveness to questions

(90) and Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in providing relevant services (90). Scores for all 

attributes that comprise the ED Staff/Coordination driver were rated 85 or higher, indicating that ED Staff 

are providing a positive grantee experience when interacting directly with grantees. Documents was the 

lowest rated driver in 2020, however the overall score of 84 is strong and should not be seen as a glaring 

weakness. High scores of 86 were provided for the organization of information and Relevance to your 

areas of need. In an effort to improve upon the lowest scoring attribute associated with the Documents 

driver, comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues that you face (82), investigate the issues 

specific to the SCTG – SEA program to ensure that the documentation provided addresses said issues. 

In the custom questions section of the survey SCTG – SEA grantees were asked to evaluate the 

Helpfulness of technical assistance provided from the OSSS office. This survey component was rated an 

83, leaving some room for improvement. One of the respondents left a useful suggestion in the open-end 

feedback regarding more individualized technical assistance; “We were very disappointed in the lack of 

regular communication by our assigned TA Center (not the US DE office). It would have been great to 

have more individualized TA and not have to pay additionally for it.” A full read-out of the verbatim 

feedback collected can be found in Appendix C.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 64

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 Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 65

Appendix A: 

Questionnaire
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 66

PROGRAM LIST

1 OELA Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program

2 OELA National Professional Development Program

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

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

5 OCTAE Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education

6 OCTAE Native American Career and Technical Education

7 OSERS IDEA – State Directors of Special Education (Part B)

8 OSERS IDEA – Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program

9 OSERS RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program

10 OSERS Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program

11 OSERS IDEA National Centers (added 12/13/19)

12 OPE Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP -State)

13 OPE GEAR UP-Partnerships

14 OPE Childcare Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS)

15 OPE Strengthening Institutions Program (SIP)

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

17 OPE Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program (MSEIP)

18 OPE Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions (DHSI)

19 OPE Promoting Post Baccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans (PPOHA)

20 OPE Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCU)-Part A

21 OPE Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions (NASNTI)

22 OPE Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions (AANAPISI)

23 OPE Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU)

24 OPE Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI)

25 OPE Student Support Services (SSS)

26 OPE Upward Bound (UB)

27 OPE Graduate Assistance in in Areas of National Need (GAANN)

28 OPE Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships

29 OPE Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Fellowships

30 OPE American Overseas Research Centers

31 OPE Language Resource Centers

32 OPE Group Projects Abroad

33 OESE Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies

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

35 OESE

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 

7003) 

36 OESE

21st Century Community Learning 

Centers 

37 OESE Student Support and Academic Enrichment/Title IVA (National Activities)

38 OESE Immediate Aid to Restart School Operations (Restart) Program

39 OESE

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III, Part 

A) 

40 OESE

Migrant Education Program (MEP) -- Title I, Part 

C 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 67

41 OESE

Grants for State 

Assessments 

 

42 OESE Teacher and school leader incentive grants (ESEA II-B-1)

43 OESE Expanding Opportunities Through Quality Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State Entities 

44 OESE Comprehensive Literacy State Development (formerly Striving Readers) 

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

46 OESE Education Innovation and Research Program--Expansion Grants/Mid Phase Grants/Early Phase Grants

47 OESE Magnet Schools Assistance Program

48 OESE

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies & National 

Activities 

49 OESE

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Grants for State and Local Activities/ McKinney-Vento 

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program 

50 OESE

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

Program 

51 OESE

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

(SRSA) 

52 OESE Promise neighborhoods (ESEA IV-F-2, section 4624)

53 OESE Supporting Effective Educator Development Program

54 OESE

Payments for Federal Property (Section 

7002) 

55 OESE Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects for Indian Children 

56 OESE

Neglected and Delinquent State and 

Local 

57 OESE Teacher Quality Partnership Program

58 OESE School Climate Transformation Grants (LEAs)

59 OESE

Native Hawaiian Education Act Program/Education of Native 

Hawaiian 

60 OESE

Alaska Native Education 

Program 

61 OESE Innovative Approaches to Literacy

62 OESE

High School Equivalency Program (HEP) - Migrant 

Education 

63 OESE

College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) - Migrant 

Education 

64 OESE Full-service community schools (ESEA IV-F-2, section 4625)

65 OESE Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC)

66 OESE Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination 

67 OESE

Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program/Javits Gifted and Talented Students 

Education Act 

68 OESE Project Prevent

69 OESE Mental Health Demonstration Grants

70 OESE School Climate Transformation Grants (SEAs)
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 68

U.S. Department of Education

2020 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 Tamara Alston at tamara.alston@ed.gov.

Please note that ALL questions on this survey (unless noted otherwise) refer to your experiences over the PAST 12 

MONTHS.

When answering the survey, please only think about your interactions with [GRANT PROGRAM]. 

 

ED Staff

[INTRO FOR OELA/OCTAE/OSERS/OESE]

Please think about the interactions you have had with the federal staff that you work with the most closely from 

the [PROGRAM OFFICE] Consider times when you sought guidance, clarification, or additional assistance.

[DO NOT ASK OSERS] [DO NOT ASK FCC/FPROP PROGRAMS] PLEASE NOTE: This does not include technical 

assistance provided by regional labs, national associations, ED-funded technical assistance providers, etc.

[INTRO FOR OPE]

Please think about the interactions you have had with senior [PROGRAM OFFICE] officers (e.g. the Director of 

the Office that administers this grant program/project). Questions regarding your individual program officer will 

be asked later in the questionnaire.]

PLEASE NOTE: This does not include technical assistance to states to build state capacity to implement 

education reforms, such as regional labs, national associations, contractors – including those that service G5, 

grants.gov, etc.

On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the quality of the assistance 

provided by ED staff. 

If a question does not apply, please select “N/A”.

Q2. Knowledge of grant program/project Federal requirements and policy

Q3. Responsiveness to your questions

Q4. Professionalism 

Q5. Sufficiency of guidance in responses

Q6. Communication about changes that may affect your program

Q7. [DO NOT ASK OSERS or OESE] Consistency of responses with ED staff from different offices

Q8. [DO NOT ASK FCC/FPROP PROGRAMS] 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)

Online Resources
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 69

Please think about your experience using the [GRANT PROGRAM]’s online resources on the ED.gov website. 

Note that these ratings should pertain specifically to the ED.gov website. Additional questions regarding other 

external websites your program/project uses may be asked later in the survey.

On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the:

[INTRO FOR OESE] Please think about your experience using the [GRANT PROGRAM]’s online resources on the 

OESE.ED.gov website. When evaluating the OESE.ED.gov website, please only think of the site since the redesign 

several months ago.

Note that these ratings should pertain specifically to the OESE.ED.gov website. Additional questions regarding 

other external websites your program/project uses may be asked later in the survey.

On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the:

Q9. Ability to find specific information 

Q10. Quality of content (e.g., materials are up-to-date, helpful, etc.)

Q11. Ability to accomplish what you want on the site

Q12. Accuracy of search results

Q13. Ability to navigate within the site

Q14. Look and feel/Visual appearance

Q15. Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Documents [ONLY FOR OELA/OCTAE/OSERS/OESE]

Think about the documents you receive from the [PROGRAM OFFICE]. Documents include non-regulatory 

guidance, frequently asked questions (FAQs), letters, publications and blast emails.

On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent”, please rate the documents’:

Q16. Clarity

Q17. Organization of information

Q18. Sufficiency of detail to meet your program/project needs

Q19. Relevance to your areas of need

Q20. Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues that you face

Information in Application Package [ONLY FOR OPE]

When you were preparing your application, how easy was it for you to locate and understand the information in 

the application package? Please rate the following on a scale from “1” to “10”, where “1” is “very difficult” and 

“10” is “very easy”.

Q21. Program Purpose

Q22. Program Priorities

Q23. Selection Criteria

Q24. Review Process

Q25. Budget Information and Forms

Q26. Deadline for Submission

Q27. Dollar Limit on Awards

Q28. Page Limitation Instructions

Q29. Formatting Instructions

Q30. Program Contact

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 70

Q31. [DO NOT ASK FCC/FPROP PROGRAMS] Please think about the performance reporting requirements for your 

grant and rate the following where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent”: [INCLUDE A “Not Applicable” 

OPTION]

[NOTE FOR OESE] Specifically, think about the performance report that the Department requires you to 

submit (e.g., the Consolidated State Performance Report, the Annual Performance Report).

[NOTE FOR OPE] Specifically, think about the performance report that the Department requires you to 

submit annually – the Annual Performance Report (APR)

a. Clarity of reporting requirements

b.Ease of obtaining data you are required to report

c. Ease of submitting report(s) electronically

d.Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) (guidance, training, tools)

e.Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant program/project

f. Your understanding of how ED uses your data

Q32. [DO NOT ASK FCC/FPROP PROGRAMS] How could we improve the grant reporting process?

Technical Assistance 

[DO NOT ASK FCC/FPROP PROGRAMS Technical Assistance section]

Now think for a moment about the technical assistance services that are provided by [GRANT PROGRAM] staff 

and/or [PRINCIPAL OFFICE] in general when answering the next few questions.

Q33. Please rate the technical assistance services provided by [GRANT PROGRAM] staff in helping you 

successfully learn to implement your grant programs/projects? Please use a 10-point scale where “1” is “Not 

at all helpful” and “10” is “Very helpful.” [DISPLAY EXAMPLES OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ED STAFF MIGHT 

PROVIDE]

Now please rate the following attributes related to the technical assistance provided by [GRANT PROGRAM] 

staff where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent” [DO NOT ASK OPE Qs 34-39]

Q34. Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program management

Q35. Using evidence-based practices in implementing program activities

Q36. Assistance with developing resource materials for use in the program

Q37. Creating opportunities for sharing best practices via peer-to-peer learning groups

Q38: In what ways could the technical assistance that Department staff provide be improved to better support 

your program needs?

[DO NOT ASK OPE q39.]

Q39a. Did you receive technical assistance from an ED-FUNDED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDER in the last 12 

months?

Examples of ED-funded technical assistance providers:

▪ Regional Laboratories

▪ Comprehensive Centers

▪ Equity Assistance Centers

▪ Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools Technical Assistance Center

▪ Neglected or Delinquent Education Technical Assistance Center

▪ Youth for Youth: Online Professional Learning and Technical Assistance for 21st Century 

Community Learning Centers
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 71

a. Yes (Please Identify the primary ED-FUNDED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDER that provided technical 

services to you)

b. No [skip to Q40]

Q39b. Please rate the extent to which [ENTRY FROM Q39a] has helped you successfully learn to implement your 

grant programs/projects? Please use a 10-point scale where “1” is “Not at all helpful” and “10” is “Very 

helpful.”

ACSI Benchmark Questions 

We have just a few more questions, where you can now consider ALL of [GRANT PROGRAM]’s products and 

services.

Q40. Using a 10-point scale on which “1” means “Very dissatisfied” and “10” means “Very satisfied,” how 

satisfied are you with [GRANT PROGRAM]’s products and services?

Q41. Now please rate the extent to which the products and services offered by [GRANT PROGRAM] have fallen 

short of or exceeded your expectations. Please use a 10-point scale on which “1” now means “Falls short of 

your expectations” and “10” means “Exceeds Your expectations.”

Q42. Now forget for a moment about the products and services offered by the [GRANT PROGRAM] and imagine 

the ideal products and services. How well do you think the [GRANT PROGRAM] compares with that ideal? 

Please use a 10-point scale on which “1” means “Not very close to the ideal” and “10” means “Very close to 

the ideal.” Now please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statement.

Q43. How much do you trust [GRANT PROGRAM] to work with you to meet your organization’s needs? Please use 

a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means not very trusting and 10 means very trusting.

Q44. Overall, when I think of all of the [GRANT PROGRAM]’s products and services, I am satisfied with their

quality. 

a. Strongly agree

b. Agree

c. Disagree

d. Strongly disagree

e. Does not apply

Q45. 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

Q46. How long have you been in this role?

a. Less than one year

b. Between 1-3 years

c. Between 4-10 years

d. More than 10 years

NOTE: EACH RESPONDENT WILL ONLY RECEIVE ONE SET OF CUSTOM QUESTIONS CONCERNING THEIR PROGRAM

Again, only think about your interactions with of [GRANT PROGRAM] when answering the following questions.

After custom question section DISPLAY: Thank you again for your time. To complete the survey and submit the 

results, please hit the “Finish” button below. Have a good day!
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 72

ONLY IF Q1=1 NATIVE AMERICAN AND ALASKA NATIVE CHILDREN IN SCHOOL PROGRAM ASK 1-11 BELOW

Q1.1. How often do you receive technical assistance (webinars, professional development, trainings) from the 

OELA office?

a. At least weekly

b. Monthly

c. Quarterly

d. Yearly

Q1.2. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how helpful is that technical assistance?

Q1.3. How often do you receive monitoring and/or technical assistance support from your program officer? 

a. At least weekly

b. Monthly

c. Quarterly

c. Yearly

Q1.4. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how helpful is that monitoring and/or 

technical assistance?

Q1.5. How often do you visit the OELA ed.gov website 

(http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/index.html)?

a. Daily

b. Weekly

c. Monthly

d. Every few months

e. Never

Q1.6. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how useful is the OELA ed.gov website?

Q1.7. How often do you visit the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (NCELA) website or 

use the NEXUS newsletter?

a. Daily

b. Weekly

c. Monthly

d. Every few months

e. Never

Q1.8. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how useful is the NCELA website and the 

NEXUS newsletter?

Q1.9. How often do you visit the OELA Facebook page?

a. Daily

b. Weekly

c. Monthly

d. Every few months

e. Never

Q1.10. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how useful is the OELA Facebook page?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 73

Q1.11. What, if any, improvements have you seen in OELA over the last year? (open end)
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 74

ONLY IF Q1=2 National Professional Development Program ASK 1-11 BELOW

Q2.1. How often do you receive technical assistance (webinars, professional development, trainings) from the 

OELA office?

a. At least weekly

b. Monthly

c. Quarterly

d. Yearly

Q2.2. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how helpful is that technical assistance?

Q2.3. How often do you receive monitoring and/or technical assistance support from your program officer? 

a. At least weekly

b. Monthly

c. Quarterly

c. Yearly

Q2.4. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how helpful is that monitoring and/or 

technical assistance?

Q2.5. How often do you visit the OELA ed.gov website 

(http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oela/index.html)?

a. Daily

b. Weekly

c. Monthly

d. Every few months

e. Never

Q2.6. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how useful is the OELA ed.gov website?

Q2.7. How often do you visit the National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (NCELA) website or 

use the NEXUS newsletter?

a. Daily

b. Weekly

c. Monthly

d. Every few months

e. Never

Q2.8. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how useful is the NCELA website and the 

NEXUS newsletter?

Q2.9. How often do you visit the OELA Facebook page?

a. Daily

b. Weekly

c. Monthly

d. Every few months

e. Never

Q2.10. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how useful is the OELA Facebook page?

Q2.11. What, if any, improvements have you seen in OELA over the last year?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 75

ONLY IF Q1=3 Adult Education and Family Literacy to the State Directors of Adult Ed (AEFLA) ASK 1-11 BELOW

Q3.1. Think about the National Reporting System as a way to report your state’s performance data to OCTAE. 

On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the NRS’s ease of reporting using 

the NRS Web-based system.

Q3.2. Think about the training offered by OCTAE through its contract to support the National Reporting System 

(NRS). On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the usefulness of the 

training.

If you have been monitored, think about the federal monitoring process as it relates to your AEFLA grant. On a 10-

point scale, where “1” is,” Not Very Effective” and “10” is “Very effective,” please rate the effectiveness of the 

federal monitoring process on the following:

Q3.3. Being well-organized

Q3.4. Providing pre-planning adequate guidance

Q3.5. Setting expectations for the visit

Think about the national meetings and conference offered by OCTAE. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and 

“10” is “Excellent”, please rate the information provided at these conferences and institutes on the following:

Q3.6. Being up-to-date 

Q3.7. Relevance of information

Q3.8. Usefulness to your program 

Think about the national activities offered by DAEL. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is,” Poor” and “10” is 

“Excellent,” please rate the activities on the following:

Q3.9 Usefulness of the products in helping your state meet AEFLA program priorities.

Q3.10.How well does the technical assistance provided through the national activities address your program 

priorities and needs? Please use a 10-point scale where “1” means “does not address needs very well” and 

“10” means “addresses needs very well.”

Q3.11.What can DAEL do over the next year to meet your state’s technical assistance/program improvement 

needs? 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 76

ONLY IF Q1= 4 Carl D. Perkins Career & Technical Education Program to the State Directors of Career & Technical 

Ed ASK 1-5 BELOW

[IF Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors]

Q4.1. CAR’s user friendliness

Q4.2. PCRN’s usefulness to your program

[IF Carl D. Perkins Discretionary Grant Recipients]

Q4.3. Effectiveness of DATE in helping you implement grant programs

Q4.4. Technical assistance received on project implementation and budget questions

Q4.5. Usefulness and relevance of project director meeting in providing technical assistance
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 77

ONLY IF Q1=5 Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education ASK 1-5 BELOW

Q5.1. PCRN’s usefulness to your program

Q5.2. Effectiveness of DATE in helping you implement grant programs

Q5.3. Technical assistance received on project implementation and budget questions

Q5.4. Usefulness and relevance of project director meeting in providing technical assistance
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 78

ONLY IF Q1=6 Native American Career and Technical Education ASK 1-5 BELOW

Q6.1. PCRN’s usefulness to your program

Q6.2. Effectiveness of DATE in helping you implement grant programs

Q6.3. Technical assistance received on project implementation and budget questions

Q6.4. Usefulness and relevance of project director meeting in providing technical assistance
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 79

ONLY IF Q1=7 IDEA - State Directors of Special Education (Part B) ASK 1-8 BELOW

Q7.1. How often do you receive technical assistance and support from your State lead?

a. At least weekly

b. Monthly

c. Quarterly

d. Yearly

e. My State Lead does not contact me

Q7.2. In the past 12 months, how often were you a part of (actively or passively) an education or special education 

policy discussion with OSEP staff?

a. At least weekly

b. Monthly

c. Quarterly

d. Yearly 

e. None

Assistance from OSEP Staff and other Professional Resources

Think about the technical assistance and support provided by state Contacts from the Monitoring and State

Improvement Planning (MSIP) Division of the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). On a 10-point scale,

where “1” is poor and “10” is excellent, please rate the staff’s:

Q7.3. Clarity of information received in developing your state’s applications, annual performance reports and other 

required submissions

Q7.4. Timeliness of responses (i.e., returning phone calls; responding to emails; forwarding to others when 

appropriate)

Think about the types of technical assistance and support provided by OSEP such as Dear Colleague letters,

Question and Answer documents, MSIP monthly TA calls, OSEP-Director’s newsletter, topical webinars, etc.

Q7.5. Which types of assistance were most effective in helping you meet federal requirements and/or improve 

program quality?

Q7.6. Which types of assistance were least helpful?

Q7.7. How often do you access the following resources to support your efforts to implement practices based on 

evidence in your state? (Please use a 10-point scale in which “1” means “Never” and “10” means “Very frequently”)

a. An OSEP-funded TA provider

b. An Education Department-funded TA provider (funded by an office other than OSEP)

c. Professional associations (including conferences, listservs, and publications)

d. Conferences where research is presented

e. Books

f. Journal Articles

g. Personal interaction with peers

h. IDEAS that work website

i. The Department’s new IDEA website

j. osep.grads360.org

Q7.8. Describe the impact it might have on the State if OSEP were to fully automate the IDEA formula grant 

submission and approval process.

ONLY IF Q1=8 IDEA-Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program ASK 1-7 BELOW
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 80

Assistance from OSEP Staff

Think about the technical assistance and support provided by state contacts from the Monitoring and State

Improvement Planning (MSIP) Division of the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). On a 10-point scale,

where “1” is poor and “10” is excellent, please rate the staff’s:

Q8.1. How often do you receive technical assistance and support from your State lead?

a. At least weekly

b. Monthly

c. Quarterly

d. Yearly

e. My State Lead does not contact me

Q8.2. Clarity of information received in developing your state’s applications, annual performance reports and other 

required submissions.

Q8.3. Timeliness of responses (i.e., returning phone calls; responding to emails; forwarding to others when 

appropriate)

Think about the types of technical assistance and support provided by OSEP such as Dear Colleague letters,

Question and Answer documents, MSIP monthly TA calls, OSEP-Director’s newsletter, topical webinars, etc.

Q8.4. Which types of assistance were most effective in helping you meet federal requirements and/or improve 

program quality?

Q8.5. Which types of assistance were least helpful?

Q8.6. How often do you access the following resources to support your efforts to implement practices based on 

evidence in your state? (Please use a 10-point scale in which “1” means “Never” and “10” means “Very frequently”)

a. IDEAC6. An OSEP-funded TA provider

b. An Education Department-funded TA provider (funded by an office other than OSEP)

c. Professional associations (including conferences, listservs, and publications)

d. Conferences where research is presented

e. Books

f. Journal Articles

g. Personal interaction with peers

h. IDEAS that work website

i. The Department’s new IDEA website

j. osep.grads360.org

Q8.7. If OSEP were to fully automate the IDEA formula grant submission and approval process, how helpful 

would that be to the State? Please use the scale below where 0 is Not Helpful and 5 is Very Helpful.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 81

ONLY IF Q1=9 REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (RSA) VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION PROGRAM ASK 

1-9 BELOW

Please consider the technical support provided by state liaisons and teams from the State Monitoring and Program 

Improvement Division of the Rehabilitation Services Administration. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and 

“10” is “Excellent,” please rate the staff’s: 

Q9.1. Responsiveness to your questions and requests for technical assistance.

Q9.2. Supportiveness in helping you complete your Unified or Combined State Plan. 

Q9.3. Dissemination of subregulatory guidance including policy directives, information memoranda, and technical 

assistance circulars. 

Q9.4. Provision of effective training and dissemination of relevant information through webinars, national 

conferences, email distribution lists and teleconferences.

Q9.5. In interacting with the State Monitoring and Program Improvement Division team assigned to your agency, 

please rate the service /support in the following areas on a 1 to 10 scale where 1 means Poor and 10 means 

Excellent. If you did not receive information or feedback in an area please select “N/A”.

a. Data Collection and Reporting

b. Fiscal/Grant Management 

c. Programmatic 

d. Technical Assistance

On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the Rehabilitation Services 

Administration website at https://RSA.ED.GOV. If your interactions with the website did not include the nature of 

the item listed, please select “N/A” for that item.

Q9.6. Utility of the website (RSA.ED.GOV) for entering required data, retrieving and revising reports. 

Q9.7. Ease of navigating website (RSA.ED.GOV). 

Q9.8. Usefulness of information available on the website (RSA.ED.GOV).

Q9.9. Website (RSA.ED.GOV) technical support. 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 82

ONLY IF Q1=10 Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program ASK 1-9 BELOW

Q10.1 What training would you like RSA to provide to assist you better in managing your RLTT grant?

a. Statutory and regulatory program requirements

b. Payback requirements

c. Uniform Guidance

d. Calculating the required 10 percent match

e. Calculating the required 65 percent scholar support

f. Other – Please identify in box below.

Q10.2 How can RLTT Project Officers assist you better with fiscal management, program reporting or other 

technical areas?

Q10.3 On a scale of 1-10, where “1” means “very dissatisfied” and “10” means “very satisfied,” how would you 

rate the usefulness of messages that are disseminated via the RSA listserv? 

Q10.4 On a scale of 1-10, where “1” means “very dissatisfied” and “10” means “very satisfied,” how would you 

rate the timeliness of messages that are disseminated via the RSA listserv? 

Q10.5 On a scale of 1-10, where “1” means “very dissatisfied” and “10” means “very satisfied,” how effective 

would you rate the Rehabilitation Long-Term Training program in training vocational rehabilitation 

counselors for employment in State Vocational Rehabilitation agencies? Please provide an explanation to 

support your rating.

Q10.6 How has the implementation of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act affected your grant 

project?

Q10.7 How has the conversion to CACREP standards affected your grant project?

Q10.8 How have the 2016 changes to the Rehabilitation Long-Term Training program affected your grant project?

Q10.9 Describe how your Rehabilitation Long-Term Training grant project is improving employment outcomes for 

individuals with disabilities. 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 83

ONLY IF Q1=11 IDEA National Centers 

Q11.1. How often do you receive technical assistance and support from your State lead?

a. At least weekly

b. Monthly

c. Quarterly

d. Yearly

e. My State Lead does not contact me

Assistance from OSEP Staff

Think about the technical assistance and support provided by State Lead from the Monitoring and State

Improvement Planning (MSIP) Division of the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). On a 10-point scale,

where “1” is poor and “10” is excellent, please rate the staff’s:

Q11.2. Clarity of information received in developing your state’s applications, annual performance reports and other 

required submissions.

Q11.3. Timeliness of responses (i.e., returning phone calls; responding to emails; forwarding to others when 

appropriate)

Think about the types of technical assistance and support provided by OSEP such as Dear Colleague letters,

Question and Answer documents, MSIP monthly TA calls, OSEP-Director’s newsletter, topical webinars, etc.

Q11.4. Which types of assistance were most effective in helping you meet federal requirements and/or improve 

program quality?

Q11.5. Which types of assistance were least helpful?

Q11.6. How often do you access the following resources to support your efforts to implement practices based on 

evidence in your state? (Please use a 10-point scale in which “1” means “Never” and “10” means “Very frequently”)

k. An OSEP-funded TA provider

l. An Education Department-funded TA provider (funded by an office other than OSEP)

m. Professional associations (including conferences, listservs, and publications)

n. Conferences where research is presented

o. Books

p. Journal Articles

q. Personal interaction with peers

r. IDEAs that work website

s. The Department’s IDEA website

t. osep.grads360.org

Q11.7. If OSEP were to fully automate the IDEA formula grant submission and approval process, how helpful 

would that be to the State? Please use the scale below where 0 is Not Helpful and 5 is Very Helpful.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 84

ONLY IF Q1=12 GEAR UP-State ASK 1-7 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q12.1. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from GEAR UP and rate the following:

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues 

Q12.2. How can GEAR UP improve the usefulness of the technical assistance you receive?

Distribution of Funds

Q12.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for the GEAR UP from 

the Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

d. Other (specify):

Communication with Program Specialist

Q12.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your GEAR UP specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q12.5. What can GEAR UP do to improve communication with you?

Q12.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q12.7.How would you advise on improving the overall process and protocols associated with this grant 

competition?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 85

ONLY IF Q1=13 GEAR UP-Partnerships ASK 1-7 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q13.1. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from GEAR UP and rate the following:

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues 

Q13.2. How can GEAR UP improve the usefulness of the technical assistance you receive?

Distribution of Funds

Q13.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for the GEAR UP from 

the Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

d. Other (specify):

Communication with Program Specialist

Q13.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your GEAR UP specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q13.5. What can GEAR UP do to improve communication with you?

Q13.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q13.7.How would you advise on improving the overall process and protocols associated with this grant 

competition?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 86

ONLY IF Q1=14 Childcare Access Means Parents In School (CCAMPIS) ASK 1-7 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q14.1. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from CCAMPIS and rate the following:

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues 

Q14.2. How can CCAMPIS improve the usefulness of the technical assistance you receive?

Distribution of Funds

Q14.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for the CCAMPIS from 

the Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

d. Other (specify):

Communication with Program Specialist

Q14.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your CCAMPIS specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q14.5. What can CCAMPIS do to improve communication with you?

Q14.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q14.7.How would you advise on improving the overall process and protocols associated with this grant 

competition?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 87

ONLY IF Q1=15 Strengthening Institutions Program ASK 1-7 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q15.1. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from the Strengthening Institutions Program

and rate the following:

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues 

Q15.2. How can the Strengthening Institutions Program improve the usefulness of the technical assistance you 

receive?

Distribution of Funds

Q15.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for the Strengthening 

Institutions Program from the Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

d. Other (specify):

Communication with Program Specialist

Q15.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your the Strengthening Institutions Program specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q15.5. What can the Strengthening Institutions Program do to improve communication with you?

Q15.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q15.7.How would you advise on improving the overall process and protocols associated with this grant 

competition?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 88

ONLY IF Q1=16 Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions - Part A ASK 1-7 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q16.1. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from ANNH-Part A and rate the following:

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues 

Q16.2. How can ANNH-Part A improve the usefulness of the technical assistance you receive?

Distribution of Funds

Q16.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for the ANNH-Part A

from the Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

d. Other (specify):

Communication with Program Specialist

Q16.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your ANNH-Part A specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q16.5. What can the ANNH-Part A do to improve communication with you?

Q16.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q16.7.How would you advise on improving the overall process and protocols associated with this grant 

competition?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 89

ONLY IF Q1=17 Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program (MSEIP) ASK 1-7 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q17.1. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from MSEIP and rate the following:

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues 

Q17.2. How can MSEIP improve the usefulness of the technical assistance you receive?

Distribution of Funds

Q17.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for the MSEIP from 

the Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

d. Other (specify):

Communication with Program Specialist

Q17.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your MSEIP specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q17.5. What can the MSEIP do to improve communication with you?

Q17.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q17.7.How would you advise on improving the overall process and protocols associated with this grant 

competition?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 90

ONLY IF Q1=18 Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions (DHSI) ASK 1-7 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q18.1. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions 

and rate the following:

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues 

Q18.2. How can Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions improve the usefulness of the technical assistance you 

receive?

Distribution of Funds

Q18.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for the Developing 

Hispanic Serving Institutions from the Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

d. Other (specify):

Communication with Program Specialist

Q18.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q18.5. What can the Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions do to improve communication with you? 

Q18.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q18.7.How would you advise on improving the overall process and protocols associated with this grant 

competition?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 91

ONLY IF Q1=19 Promoting Post Baccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans (PPOHA) ASK 1-7 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q19.1. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from PPOHA and rate the following:

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues 

Q19.2. How can PPOHA improve the usefulness of the technical assistance you receive?

Distribution of Funds

Q19.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for the PPOHA from 

the Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

d. Other (specify):

Communication with Program Specialist

Q19.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your PPOHA specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q19.5. What can the PPOHA do to improve communication with you? 

Q19.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q19.7.How would you advise on improving the overall process and protocols associated with this grant 

competition?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 92

ONLY IF Q1=20 Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCU) ASK 1-7 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q20.1. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from TCCU and rate the following:

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues 

Q20.2. How can TCCU improve the usefulness of the technical assistance you receive?

Distribution of Funds

Q20.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for the TCCU from the 

Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

d. Other (specify):

Communication with Program Specialist

Q20.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your TCCU specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q20.5. What can the TCCU do to improve communication with you? 

Q20.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q20.7.How would you advise on improving the overall process and protocols associated with this grant 

competition?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 93

ONLY IF Q1=21 Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions (NASNTI) ASK 1-7 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q21.1. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from NASNTI and rate the following:

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues 

Q21.2. How can NASNTI improve the usefulness of the technical assistance you receive?

Distribution of Funds

Q21.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for the NASNTI from 

the Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

d. Other (specify):

Communication with Program Specialist

Q21.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your NASNTI specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q21.5. What can the NASNTI do to improve communication with you? 

Q21.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q21.7.How would you advise on improving the overall process and protocols associated with this grant 

competition?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 94

ONLY IF Q1=22 Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions (AANAPISI) ASK 1-7 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q22.1. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from AANAPISI and rate the following:

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues 

Q22.2. How can AANAPISI improve the usefulness of the technical assistance you receive?

Distribution of Funds

Q22.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for the AANAPISI from 

the Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

d. Other (specify):

Communication with Program Specialist

Q22.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your AANAPISI specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q22.5. What can the AANAPISI do to improve communication with you? 

Q22.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q22.7.How would you advise on improving the overall process and protocols associated with this grant 

competition?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 95

ONLY IF Q1=23 Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) ASK 1-7 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q23.1. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from HBCU and rate the following:

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues 

Q23.2. How can HBCU improve the usefulness of the technical assistance you receive?

Distribution of Funds

Q23.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for the HBCU from the 

Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

d. Other (specify):

Communication with Program Specialist

Q23.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your HBCU specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q23.5. What can the HBCU do to improve communication with you? 

Q23.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q23.7.How would you advise on improving the overall process and protocols associated with this grant 

competition?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 96

ONLY IF Q1=24 Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) ASK 1-7 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q24.1. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from PREDOMINANTLY BLACK INSTITUTIONS 

and rate the following:

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues 

Q24.2. How can PREDOMINANTLY BLACK INSTITUTIONS improve the usefulness of the technical assistance you 

receive?

Distribution of Funds

Q24.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for the 

PREDOMINANTLY BLACK INSTITUTIONS from the Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

d. Other (specify):

Communication with Program Specialist

Q24.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your PREDOMINANTLY BLACK INSTITUTIONS specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q24.5. What can the PREDOMINANTLY BLACK INSTITUTIONS do to improve communication with you? 

Q24.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q24.7.How would you advise on improving the overall process and protocols associated with this grant 

competition?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 97

ONLY IF Q1=25 Student Support Services ASK 1-7 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q25.1. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from Student Support Services and rate the 

following:

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues

Q25.2. How can Student Support Services improve the usefulness of the technical assistance you receive?

Distribution of Funds

Q25.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for the Student 

Support Services from the Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees

d. Other (specify):

Communication with Program Specialist

Q25.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your Student Support Services specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q25.5. What can the Student Support Services do to improve communication with you? 

Q25.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q25.7.How would you advise on improving the overall process and protocols associated with this grant 

competition?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 98

ONLY IF Q1=26 Upward Bound ASK 1-7 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q26.1. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from Upward Bound and rate the following:

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues 

Q26.2. How can Upward Bound improve the usefulness of the technical assistance you receive?

Distribution of Funds

Q26.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for Upward Bound 

from the Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

d. Other (specify):

Communication with Program Specialist

Q26.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your Upward Bound specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q26.5. What can Upward Bound do to improve communication with you? 

Q26.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q26.7.How would you advise on improving the overall process and protocols associated with this grant 

competition?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 99

ONLY IF Q1=27 Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need (GAANN) ASK 1-7 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q27.1. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from GAANN and rate the following:

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues

Q27.2. How can GAANN improve the usefulness of the technical assistance you receive?

Distribution of Funds

Q27.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for GAANN from the 

Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees

d. Other (specify):

Communication with Program Specialist

Q27.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your GAANN specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q27.5. What can GAANN do to improve communication with you? 

Q27.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q27.7.How would you advise on improving the overall process and protocols associated with this grant 

competition?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 100

ONLY IF Q1=28 Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships ASK 1-8 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q28.1. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from Foreign Language and Area Studies 

Fellowships and rate the following:

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues 

Q28.2. How can Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships improve the usefulness of the technical 

assistance you receive?

Distribution of Funds

Q28.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for Foreign Language 

and Area Studies Fellowships from the Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

d. Other (specify):

Communication with Program Specialist

Q28.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships 

specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q28.5. What can Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships do to improve communication with you? 

Q28.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q28.7.Think about the extent to which the International and Foreign Language Education (IFLE) program 

establishes, strengthens, and operates language and area or international studies centers. On a 10-point 

scale where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent please rate the extent to which you agree with the 

following:

a. The IFLE program(s) under my purview is effective in supporting instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding of areas, regions or countries

b. The IFLE program(s) under my purview supports work in the language aspects of professional and other 

fields of study

c. The IFLE program(s) under my purview supports research and training in international studies

Q28.8. On a 10-point scale where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent please rate the extent to which the 

International and Foreign Language Education (IFLE) grant program establishes and strengthens: 

a. Teaching of any modern foreign language
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 101

b. Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding of areas, regions, or countries in which the 

language is commonly used

c. Research and training in international studies

d. Language aspects of professional and other fields of study

e. Instruction and research on issues in world affairs
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 102

ONLY IF Q1=29 Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Fellowships ASK 1-8 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q29.1. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad

Fellowships and rate the following:

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues 

Q29.2. How can Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Fellowships improve the usefulness of the technical 

assistance you receive?

Distribution of Funds

Q29.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for Doctoral 

Dissertation Research Abroad Fellowships from the Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

d. Other (specify):

Communication with Program Specialist

Q29.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad

Fellowships specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q29.5. What can Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Fellowships do to improve communication with you? 

Q29.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q29.7.Think about the extent to which the International and Foreign Language Education (IFLE) program 

establishes, strengthens, and operates language and area or international studies centers. On a 10-point 

scale where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent please rate the extent to which you agree with the 

following:

a. The IFLE program(s) under my purview is effective in supporting instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding of areas, regions or countries

b. The IFLE program(s) under my purview supports work in the language aspects of professional and other 

fields of study

c. The IFLE program(s) under my purview supports research and training in international studies

Q29.8. On a 10-point scale where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent please rate the extent to which the 

International and Foreign Language Education (IFLE) grant program establishes and strengthens: 

a. Teaching of any modern foreign language
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 103

b. Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding of areas, regions, or countries in which the 

language is commonly used

c. Research and training in international studies

d. Language aspects of professional and other fields of study

e. Instruction and research on issues in world affairs
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 104

ONLY IF Q1=30 American Overseas Research Centers ASK 1-8 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q30.1. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from American Overseas Research Centers and 

rate the following:

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues 

Q30.2. How can American Overseas Research Centers improve the usefulness of the technical assistance you 

receive?

Distribution of Funds

Q30.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for American 

Overseas Research Centers from the Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

d. Other (specify):

Communication with Program Specialist

Q30.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your American Overseas Research Centers specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q30.5. What can American Overseas Research Centers do to improve communication with you? 

Q30.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q30.7.Think about the extent to which the International and Foreign Language Education (IFLE) program 

establishes, strengthens, and operates language and area or international studies centers. On a 10-point 

scale where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent please rate the extent to which you agree with the 

following:

a. The IFLE program(s) under my purview is effective in supporting instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding of areas, regions or countries

b. The IFLE program(s) under my purview supports work in the language aspects of professional and other 

fields of study

c. The IFLE program(s) under my purview supports research and training in international studies

Q30.8. On a 10-point scale where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent please rate the extent to which the 

International and Foreign Language Education (IFLE) grant program establishes and strengthens: 

a. Teaching of any modern foreign language
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 105

b. Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding of areas, regions, or countries in which the 

language is commonly used

c. Research and training in international studies

d. Language aspects of professional and other fields of study

e. Instruction and research on issues in world affairs
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 106

ONLY IF Q1=31 Language Research Centers ASK 1-8 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q31.1. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from Language Research Centers and rate the 

following:

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues

Q31.2. How can Language Research Centers improve the usefulness of the technical assistance you receive?

Distribution of Funds

Q31.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for Language 

Research Centers from the Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees

d. Other (specify):

Communication with Program Specialist

Q31.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your Language Research Centers specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q31.5. What can Language Research Centers do to improve communication with you? 

Q31.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q31.7.Think about the extent to which the International and Foreign Language Education (IFLE) program 

establishes, strengthens, and operates language and area or international studies centers. On a 10-point 

scale where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent please rate the extent to which you agree with the 

following:

a. The IFLE program(s) under my purview is effective in supporting instruction in fields needed to provide full

understanding of areas, regions or countries

b. The IFLE program(s) under my purview supports work in the language aspects of professional and other

fields of study

c. The IFLE program(s) under my purview supports research and training in international studies

Q31.8. On a 10-point scale where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent please rate the extent to which the 

International and Foreign Language Education (IFLE) grant program establishes and strengthens: 

a. Teaching of any modern foreign language

b. Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding of areas, regions, or countries in which the

language is commonly used
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 107

c. Research and training in international studies

d. Language aspects of professional and other fields of study

e. Instruction and research on issues in world affairs
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 108

ONLY IF Q1=32 Groups Projects Abroad ASK 1-8 BELOW

Technical Assistance

Q32.1. Think about your experience receiving technical assistance from Group Projects Abroad and rate the 

following:

a. Responsiveness to your questions

b. Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures

c. Ability to resolve issues

d. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

e. Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues 

Q32.2. How can Group Projects Abroad improve the usefulness of the technical assistance you receive?

Distribution of Funds

Q32.3. Please rate the following aspects of the process by which you receive grant funding for Group Projects 

Abroad from the Office of Postsecondary Education: 

a. Timeliness of the grant award notification

b. Degree to which funds are available with adequate time to plan for implementation by the start 

of the school year

c. Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 

d. Other (specify):

Communication with Program Specialist

Q32.4. Please rate the quality of the communication with your Group Projects Abroad specialist.

a. Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed

b. Frequency of communication

c. Clarity of communication

Q32.5. What can Group Projects Abroad do to improve communication with you? 

Q32.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your program specialist?

a. Individual Email

b. “Blast/distribution list” email

c. Telephone

d. Webinar

e. Other (specify_______)

Q32.7.Think about the extent to which the International and Foreign Language Education (IFLE) program 

establishes, strengthens, and operates language and area or international studies centers. On a 10-point 

scale where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent please rate the extent to which you agree with the 

following:

a. The IFLE program(s) under my purview is effective in supporting instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding of areas, regions or countries

b. The IFLE program(s) under my purview supports work in the language aspects of professional and other 

fields of study

c. The IFLE program(s) under my purview supports research and training in international studies

Q32.8. On a 10-point scale where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent please rate the extent to which the 

International and Foreign Language Education (IFLE) grant program establishes and strengthens: 

a. Teaching of any modern foreign language

b. Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding of areas, regions, or countries in which the 

language is commonly used
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 109

c. Research and training in international studies

d. Language aspects of professional and other fields of study

e. Instruction and research on issues in world affairs
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 110

ONLY IF Q1=33 TITLE I PART A – Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Education Agencies (LEAs) ASK 1-4

BELOW

Customer Service and Implementation Support

Think about the support Department staff provide and your participation in the Department’s technical assistance 

activities (e.g., performance reviews, consolidated state performance report, grantee meetings, communities of 

practice, responses to State questions, assistance meeting program requirements). On a scale from 1 to 10, where 

1 is not very effective and 10 is very effective, please rate the effectiveness of these activities to support your State 

in implementation of Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Education Agencies.

Q33.1 Provides assistance that enhances my capacity to implement your Title I grant

Q33.2 Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs to implement your Title I grant

Q33.3 Helps my State address grant implementation challenges

Q33.4 Provides information about key changes to requirements (e.g., provisions under ESSA, dear colleague 

letters, flexible uses of funds)
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 111

ONLY IF Q1=34 Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants ASK 1-4 BELOW

Think about the support Department staff provide and your participation in the Department’s technical assistance 

activities (e.g., performance reviews, consolidated state performance report, grantee meetings, communities of 

practice, responses to State questions, assistance meeting program requirements). On a scale from 1 to 10, where 

1 is not very effective and 10 is very effective, please rate the effectiveness of these activities to support your State 

in implementation of Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants. 

Q34.1. Provides assistance that enhances my capacity to implement Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants 

Q34.2. Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs to implement Supporting Effective Instruction State 

Grants 

Q34.3. Helps my State address grant implementation challenges 

Q34.4. Provides information about key changes to requirements (e.g., provisions under ESSA, dear colleague 

 letters, flexible uses of funds)
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 112

ONLY IF Q1=35 Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) ASK 1-16 BELOW

Think about your experience preparing and submitting your most recent Impact Aid application, including 

gathering and organizing data and preparing the e-application.

Q35.1Did you contact the Impact Aid Program for technical assistance? 

a. Yes

b. No

[IF Q35.1=a, ASK Q35.2-4] On a scale of “1” to “10”, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent”; rate the Impact 

Aid Program staff’s: 

Q35.2 Responsiveness to answering questions

Q35.3 Supportiveness in helping you complete your application

Q35.4 Knowledge about technical material

Q35.5 Did you use the written instruction and guidance documents provided for the application?

a. Yes

b. No

Q35.6 [IF Q35.5=a] On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is not very effective and “10” is very effective rate the 

effectiveness of the documents in helping you complete the application.

Q35.7. Have you attended any Webinars or in person meetings where IAP staff provided you information on the 

Section 7003 program and the review process?

a. Yes

b. No

Q35.8. [IF Q35.7=a] Did the presentation and/or materials prepared help you understand your responsibilities in 

submitting data?

a. Yes

b. No

Q35.8a. [IF Q35.8=a] Please explain. 

Q35.9 Has your school district been contacted by the Impact Aid Program in the past year regarding a field 

review of your application? 

a. Yes 

b. No

Q35.10 [IF Q35.9=a] Did the letter you received provide sufficient explanation of what and how you need to 

prepare your documents for the review?

a. Yes

b. No

Q35.11 [IF Q35.10=b] Please explain. (Open end)

Q35.12 Did you receive timely communications regarding the outcome of the review? 

a. Yes

b. No

Q35.13 [IF Q35.12=b] Please explain. 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 113

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.

Q35.14. Ease of reaching the person who could address your concern

Q35.15. Ability to resolve your issue

Q35.16. Please provide any additional specific suggestions for how the Impact Aid Program can improve customer 

service. 

Q35.17. What additional communications would you like to receive regarding the status of your application, prior 

to receiving a payment?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 114

ONLY IF Q1=36 21st Century Community Learning Centers ASK 1-6 BELOW

Customer Service and Implementation Support

Think about the support Department staff provide and your participation in the Department’s technical assistance 

activities (e.g., performance reviews, consolidated state performance report, grantee meetings, communities of 

practice, responses to State questions, assistance meeting program requirements). On a scale from 1 to 10, where 

1 is not very effective and 10 is very effective, please rate the effectiveness of these activities to support your State 

in implementation of [PROGRAM NAME from Q1].

Q36.1 Provides assistance that enhances my capacity to implement your 21st CCLC grant

Q36.2 Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs to implement your 21st CCLC grant

Q36.3 Helps my State address grant implementation challenges

Q36.4 Provides information about key changes to requirements (e.g., provisions under ESSA, dear colleague 

letters, flexible uses of funds)

Think about services offered in the previous year to support your State’s implementation of 21st CCLC.

Q36.5 How helpful is the information and guidance provided to you by the US Department of Education staff and 

contracted staff in preparing for monitoring activities (monitoring calls, virtual reviews, onsite monitoring reviews? 

Please use a 10-point scale with “1” being “not very helpful” and “10” being “very helpful”.

Q36.6 How likely are you to recommend the 21st CCLC program’s You for Youth (Y4Y) website at 

https://y4y.ed.gov/ to your State’s grantees as a technical assistance resource? Please use a 10-point scale with

“1” being not at all likely and “10” being extremely likely.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 115

ONLY IF Q1=37 Student Support and Academic Enrichment ASK 1-6 BELOW

Q37.1. How often do you visit the National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments (NCSSLE) Web site 

operated and maintained by AIR (https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/ESSA-TitleIVPartA-SSAE)? 

a. Daily

b. Weekly

c. Monthly

d. Every few months

e. Never

Q37.2. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how useful is the NCSSLE website?

Q37.3. How can we improve our NCSSLE website, including links, to help you identify program resources and 

meet your technical assistance needs?

Q37.4. How often do you visit the Student Support and Academic Enrichment Title IV, Part A State Coordinator 

Portal (Title IV Part A Portal) operated by Synergy Enterprises Inc and maintained by AIR 

(https://titleivpartastatecoordinatorportal.ed.gov/user/login)?

a. Daily

b. Weekly

c. Monthly

d. Every few months

e. Never

Q37.5. On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how useful is the Title IV Part A Portal?

Q37.6. How can we improve our Title IV Part A Portal to help you identify program resources and meet your 

technical assistance needs? 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 116

ONLY IF Q1=38 Immediate Aid to Restart School Operations (Restart) Program ASK 1-3 BELOW

Think about your experience with Restart program when answering the following questions.

Q38.1 In which of the following areas would you like technical assistance?

a. General guidance and regulations

b. Use of funds

c. Subrecipient technical assistance or monitoring and oversight

d. Other (fill in)

Q38.2 Please describe your best technical assistance experience. 

Q38.3 From which of the following ways do you prefer to get information? 

a. In-person during convenings or meetings

b. Written communication sent through a listserv

c. Webinars or virtual presentations 

d. Other (fill in)
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 117

ONLY IF Q1=39 English Language Acquisition State Grants/Title III State Formula Grant Program

ASK 1-6 BELOW

Think about the support Department staff provide and your participation in the Department’s technical assistance 

activities (e.g., performance reviews, consolidated state performance report, grantee meetings, communities of 

practice, responses to State questions, assistance meeting program requirements). On a scale from 1 to 10, where 

1 is not very effective and 10 is very effective, please rate the effectiveness of these activities to support your State 

in implementation of English Language Acquisition State Grants.

Q39.1. Provides assistance that enhances my capacity to implement your Title III grant 

Q39.2. Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs to implement your Title III grant 

Q39.3. Helps my State address grant implementation challenges 

Q39.4. Provides information about key changes to requirements (e.g., provisions under ESSA, dear colleague 

letters, flexible uses of funds) 

Think about services offered in the previous year (e.g., opportunities for peer learning, collaboration calls, grantee 

meetings, communities of practice, webinars, publication of non-regulatory guidance , support transitioning to the 

Every Student Succeeds Act, review of State Plans) to support your State’s implementation of your Title III grant. 

Q39.5. What services provided by the Department have been most helpful or effective? (Please cite specific 

examples) 

Q39.6. How can the Department’s services be improved over the next year to better meet the needs of your State 

as you implement your Title III grant? (Please cite specific recommendations)
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 118

ONLY IF Q1=40 Migrant Education Program (MEP) -- Title I, Part C ASK 1-2 BELOW

Q40.1 How can the program office’s services be improved over the next year to better meet the needs of new 

State Directors in implementing the MEP? (Please cite specific recommendations) (open ended)

Q40.2. Please check up to three technical assistance topics that you will need in the future, in order to improve the 

performance of your MEP. (Check boxes with the maximum of three to be selected for the topics below) [PN: 

Multi-select with max of 3 choices.] 

a. Child Eligibility 

b. Comprehensive Needs Assessment 

c. Continuation of Services

d. Data Management and Reporting 

e. Fiscal Requirements

f. Identification and Recruitment (ID&R) Methods and Strategies 

g. Interstate Coordination 

h. Parental/Family Engagement 

i. Priority for Services 

j. Program Evaluation 

k. Identification and Recruitment (ID&R) Quality Control 

l. Records Exchange, including the use of the Migrant Student Information Exchange (MSIX)

l. Re-interviewing 

n. Service Delivery Models 

o. Service Delivery Plan, including Measurable Program Outcomes (MPOs)

p. Subgranting 

q. Service Delivery Strategies (Instructional and Support) 

r. Subrecipient Monitoring 

s. Other, please specify [ANCHOR at bottom]
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 119

ONLY IF Q1=41 Grants for State Assessments ASK 1-4 BELOW

Customer Service and Implementation Support

Think about the support Department staff provide and your participation in the Department’s technical assistance 

activities (e.g., performance reviews, consolidated state performance report, grantee meetings, communities of 

practice, responses to State questions, assistance meeting program requirements). On a scale from 1 to 10, where 

1 is not very effective and 10 is very effective, please rate the effectiveness of these activities to support your State 

in implementation of Grants for State Assessments.

Q41.1 Provides assistance that enhances my capacity to implement your Grant for State Assessment

Q41.2 Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs to implement your Grant for State Assessment

Q41.3 Helps my State address grant implementation challenges

Q41.4 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 Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 120

ONLY IF Q1=42 Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants ASK 1-5 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:

Q42.1. Assistance in improving your program planning and implementation 

Q42.2 Providing relevant information and ideas 

Q42.3 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 

point scale, where 1 is not very helpful and 10 is very helpful, please rate the assistance they have provided in 

terms of their:

Q42.4 Relevant knowledge of your program activities

Q42.5 Quality and helpfulness of communication 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 121

ONLY IF Q1=43 Expanding Opportunities Through Quality Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State ASK 1-5

BELOW

Please rate the following questions that ask about meeting and communications. Use a scale from 1 to 10, where 

“1” is “not very satisfied” and “10” is “very satisfied.” 

Meetings/Communications 

Q43.1. How satisfied are you with CSP’s dissemination of resources through web-based platforms (i.e., the NCSRC 

website), Charter Talks, and annual meetings? 

Q43.2. How satisfied are you with the accessibility, timeliness, and responsiveness of CSP’s overall communication 

and information sharing?

Monitoring/Technical Assistance 

Q43.3. How satisfied are you with the technical assistance you receive by the program staff on questions related 

to your project implementation and budget?

Q43.4. How satisfied are you with regular opportunities to provide CSP with an understanding of your project’s 

progress, challenges, and accomplishments (e.g., monitoring activities, annual performance reports, 

quarterly updates)? 

Q43.5. How satisfied are you with the guidance CSP provides on Federal grant procedures (e.g., Non-regulatory 

guidance, EDGAR, OMB Circular A-122, etc.)?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 122

ONLY IF Q1=44 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:

Q44.1. Responsiveness to questions.

Q44.2. Timely resolution of general programmatic and financial issues.

Q44.3. Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication.

Q44.4. The quality of information or feedback received from SRCL program officer.

Q44.5. Frequency of communication regarding grant information, deadlines, expectations, requirements, or other 

pertinent information

Q44.6. Your overall level of satisfaction with the service provided by the program officer.

Q44.7. Your satisfaction with the face-to-face SRCL Program Director’s National Convening. 

Q44.8. 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)? 

Q44.9. What technical assistance topics can the SRCL program provide during meetings and SRCL Communities of 

Practice events to support the states more effectively? 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 123

ONLY IF Q1=45 Charter Schools Program Grants for Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools

ASK 1-5 BELOW

Please rate the following questions that ask about meeting and communications. Use a scale from 1 to 10, where 

“1” is “not very satisfied” and “10” is “very satisfied.” 

Meetings/Communications 

Q45.1. How satisfied are you with CSP’s dissemination of resources through web-based platforms (i.e., the NCSRC 

website) and annual meetings?

Q45.2. How satisfied are you with the accessibility, timeliness, and responsiveness of CSP’s overall communication 

and information sharing?

Monitoring/Technical Assistance 

Q45.3. How satisfied are you with the technical assistance you receive by the program staff on questions related 

to your project implementation and budget?

Q45.4. How satisfied are you with regular opportunities to provide CSP with an understanding of your project’s 

progress, challenges, and accomplishments (e.g., monitoring activities, annual performance reports, 

quarterly updates)?

Q45.5. How satisfied are you with the guidance CSP provides on Federal grant procedures (e.g., Non-regulatory 

guidance, EDGAR, OMB Circular A-122, etc.)?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 124

ONLY IF Q1=46 Education Innovation and Research Programs ASK 1-7 BELOW

Think about the technical support and assistance you have received from the i3/EIR Evaluation Technical 

Assistance/Abt Associates. On a 10 point scale, where 1 is not very helpful and 10 is very helpful, please rate the 

technical assistance they provided your team in terms of their:

Q46.1 Assistance in improving your evaluation planning and implementation 

Q46.2 Providing relevant information and ideas 

Q46.3 Connecting you with other experts or practitioners working on similar evaluations 

Consider the i3/EIR 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: 

Q46.4 Implementing a meaningful, rigorous evaluation 

Q46.5 Gaining helpful technical assistance to conduct a meaningful, rigorous evaluation

Meetings/Communications 

Q46.6 The dissemination of resources and opportunities the i3/EIR provides 

Q46.7 The overall communication and information is accessible and is provided by the program is timely and 

responsive manner.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 125

ONLY IF Q1=47 Magnet Schools Assistance Program ASK 1-6 BELOW

Q47.1. Did you ask your ED Program Contact, “PROGRAM OFFICER”, for assistance in areas not related to fiscal or 

grant administration issues?

Q47.2. [If Q47.1=Yes] On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the 

Program Officer quality of assistance. 

Q47.3. On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent”, please rate the Program Officer 

responsiveness.

Q47.4. On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the MSAP Center 

technical assistance support. 

Q47.5. On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the GRADS 360 system.

Q47.6. 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 Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 126

ONLY IF Q1=48 Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies ASK 1-8 BELOW

Think about the particular ways in which you have received technical support and/or assistance from the Office of 

Indian Education (OIE). On a 10-point scale, where “1” is not very effective and “10” is very effective, please rate 

the effectiveness of technical assistance in: 

 

Q48.1. Timeliness of OIE staff in providing information to meet your Title VI application and APR deadlines.

Q48.2. Quality of support and technical assistance provided by OIE staff on Title VI program implementation. 

Q48.3. Comprehensiveness of guidance documents OIE provides, e.g. Getting Started; Frequently Asked 

Questions, website links and EASIE Community website.

Think about the application process when applying for a grant through the Electronic Application System for Indian 

Education (EASIE). On a 10-point scale, where “1” is poor and “10” is excellent, please rate the EASIE System on the 

following:

Q48.4. Ease of using the EASIE system when applying for a grant. 

Q48.5. Quality of training via webinars provided by the EASIE system and grant application process.

Q48.6. Think about the Title VI formula grant requirements. Select two topics around which you have greatest 

need for technical assistance:

a. Establishing parent committees

b. Expanding membership of parent committees

c. Verifying student information

d. Using the EASIE system

e. Allowable uses of funds

f. General grant program requirements, deadlines and milestones

g. Using the G5 system

Q48.7. What professional development training or conferences do you or your staff attend locally, regionally or 

nationally to improve the performance of your programs (i.e. State Conferences, National Associations, 

Federal Program Conferences, etc.)? 

Q48.8. Over the next year, what can OIE do to better meet your technical assistance and program improvement 

needs? 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 127

ONLY IF Q1=49 Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program – McKinney-Vento ASK 1-5 BELOW

In regards to the technical assistance provided by U.S. Department of Education program staff for the Education 

for Homeless Children and Youth (EHCY) program and the National Center for Homeless Education (NCHE), please 

rate the following using a 10-point scale, where 1 is Poor and 10 is Excellent: 

Q49.1.Responsiveness in answering questions. 

Q49.2. Sufficiency of the guidance provided in responses to questions.

On a scale of 1 to 10, where “1” is “Not very effective” and “10” is “Very effective,” please rate the effectiveness of 

the TA efforts provided by the U.S. Department of Education and NCHE staff in helping you with the 

following: 

FORMATTING NOTE – USE 2 COLUMNS FOR EACH QUESTION (3-5) TO SHOW USDE and NCHE 

U.S. Department of Education 

Q49.3. Guidance provided to meet program compliance requirements 

Q49.4. Assistance provide to help States reach performance goals 

Q49.5. Quality of support provided for collecting and submitting quality data

NCHE

Q49.3a. Guidance provided to meet program compliance requirements

Q49.4a. Assistance provide to help States reach performance goals 

Q49.5a. Quality of support provided for collecting and submitting quality data
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 128

ONLY IF Q1=50 Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP)/Rural Low-Income School (RLIS) Program ASK 1-5

BELOW

Q50.1 How can the REAP program office improve the MAX.gov process, through which States provide the 

necessary data to the Department to determine annual LEA eligibility for the REAP RLIS and SRSA formula grant 

programs? (open end)

Q50.2 How could we make the annual fall What SEAs Need to Know webinar more beneficial to your State 

educational agency? (Open end)

Q50.3 How do you hear about REAP program updates and events (e.g., webinars)? (Check all that apply)

a. Email announcements from REAP

b. Newsletter

c. U.S. Department of Education website

d. Community organizations

e. Social Media (Twitter, Facebook)

f. Other (please specify)___________________________

Q50.4 Please check up to 3 topics for technical assistance that you will need in the future in order to improve the 

performance of your RLIS grant. (Check boxes with the maximum of 3 to be selected from the topics below) 

[PN: Multi-select with max of 3 choices. Randomize]

a. Use of grant funds

b. Use of G5 (e.g., grantee information, grant award notice (GAN), available funds, drawdown of funds, etc.)

c. Use of Max.gov

d. Providing technical assistance to grantees

e. REAP eligibility data and estimating award amounts

f. Consolidated grant application process

g. Grant eligibility data review & submission

h. Fiscal accounting procedures

i. Monitoring RLIS grantees

j. Use of grant funds for administrative costs

k. Reporting and use of data

l. Other (please specify)

Q50.5 Please use the space below to share any additional thoughts you have about the RLIS program. (Open 

end)
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 129

ONLY IF Q1=51 Rural Education Achievement Program/Small, Rural School Achievement Program ASK 1-6

BELOW

Q51.1 How could we make SRSA webinars more beneficial to you? (Open end)

Q51.2 How do you hear about REAP program updates and events (e.g., webinars)?

a. Email announcements from REAP

b. Newsletter

c. U.S. Department of Education website

d. State educational agencies

e. Community organizations

f. Social Media (Twitter, Facebook)

g. Other (please specify)___________________________

Q51.3 Please check up to 3 topics for technical assistance that you will need in the future in order to improve the 

performance of your SRSA grant. (Check boxes with the maximum of 3 to be selected for the topics below) 

[PN: Multi-select with max of 3 choices. Randomize]

a. Use of funds

b. Use of G5 (e.g., grantee information, grant award notice (GAN), available funds, drawdown of funds, 

etc.)

c. Grant application process

d. EDGAR

e. REAP flexibility

f. Reporting and use of data

g. REAP eligibility data and estimating award amounts

h. More communication of resources (e.g. webinars)

i. Other: [Type in response]

Q51.4 Think about your experience with the revised FY 2020 SRSA application process as compared to the process 

in previous years. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent, please rate the following:

h. Clarity of instructions for accessing and completing the application

i. Ease of accessing the application using the unique link in the invitation email

j. Navigating the application on the MAX.gov survey tool

k. Preparing and completing the information requested on the application

l. Ease of submitting the application

m. Utilizing the confirmation email

Q51.5 Please provide any suggestions for how the REAP team can reduce the overall burden to your school district. 

Q51.6 Please use the space below to share any additional thoughts you have about the SRSA program. 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 130

ONLY IF Q1=52 Promise Neighborhoods ASK 1-6 BELOW

Q52.1 Did you ask your ED Program Contact, “PROGRAM OFFICER”, for assistance in areas not related to fiscal or 

grant administration issues?

a. Yes

b. No

Q52.2 [If Q1=Yes] On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the ED Program 

Contacts quality of assistance. 

Q52.3 On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the Urban Institute’s 

Needs Assessment Quality. 

Q52.4 On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the Urban Institute’s other 

services. 

Q52.5 On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the SCORECARD system.

Q52.6 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 Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 131

ONLY IF Q1=53 Supporting Effective Educator Development Program ASK 1-5 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:

Q53.1 Assistance in improving your program planning and implementation 

Q53.2 Providing relevant information and ideas 

Q53.3 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: 

Q54.4 Implementing a meaningful, rigorous evaluation 

Q54.5 Gaining helpful technical assistance to conduct a meaningful, rigorous evaluation
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 132

ONLY IF Q1=54 Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002) ASK 1-9 BELOW

Think about your experience preparing and submitting your most recent Impact Aid application, including 

gathering and organizing data and preparing the e-application.

Q54.1 Did you contact the Impact Aid Program for technical assistance? 

1. Yes

2. No

[IF Q54.1=a, ASK Q54.2-4] On a scale of “1” to “10”, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent”; rate the Impact 

Aid Program staff’s: 

Q54.2 Responsiveness to answering questions

Q54.3 Supportiveness in helping you complete your application

Q54.4 Knowledge about technical material

Q54.5 Did you use the written instruction and guidance documents provided for the application?

a. Yes

b. No

Q54.6 [IF Q54.5=a] On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is not very effective and “10” is very effective rate the 

effectiveness of the documents in helping you complete the application.

Q54.7 Have you attended any Webinars or in person meetings where IAP staff provided you information on the 

Section 7002 program?

a. Yes

b. No

Q54.8. [IF Q54.7=a] Did the presentation and/or materials prepared help you understand your responsibilities in 

submitting data?

a. Yes

b. No

Q54.9. [IF Q54.8=a] Please explain. 

Q54.10. What additional communications would you like to receive regarding the status of your application, prior 

to receiving a payment? 

Q54.11 Please provide any additional specific suggestions for how the Impact Aid Program can improve customer 

service.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 133

ONLY IF Q1=55 Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects Demonstration Grants ASK 1-4 BELOW

As it relates to the Native Youth Community Projects (NYCP) program, please rate the following using a 10 point 

scale, where “1” means “Poor” and “10” means “Excellent” 

Q55.1. Usefulness and relevance of webinar-based technical assistance

Q55.2. Usefulness and relevance of project director meeting technical assistance 

Q55.3. Usefulness and relevance of technical assistance resources on the OIE web site. 

Q55.4. Assign the priority, 1 being highest and 8 being lowest, that you would assign to the following technical 

assistance topics:

a. Data Collection

b. Performance Reporting

c. Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)

d. Capacity Building

e. Parent Engagement

f. Partnerships

g. Cultural Relevance

h. Allowable Costs and Budgeting Flexibilities
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 134

ONLY IF Q1=56 Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs (Title I, Part D) ASK 1-5 BELOW

In regards to the technical assistance provided by U.S. Department of Education program staff for the Prevention 

and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent or At Risk and the National 

Technical Assistance Center for the Education of Neglected and Delinquent Children and Youth (NDTAC), please rate 

the following using a 10-point scale, where 1 is Poor and 10 is Excellent: 

Q56.1. Responsiveness in answering questions

Q56.2. Sufficiency of the guidance provided in responses to questions 

On a scale of 1 to 10, where “1” is “Not very effective” and “10” is “Very effective,” please rate the effectiveness of 

the TA efforts provided by the U.S. Department of Education and NDTAC staff in helping you with the following: 

FORMATTING NOTE – USE 2 COLUMNS FOR EACH QUESTION (3-5) TO SHOW ED and NDTAC 

US Department of Education 

Q56.3. Guidance provided to meet program compliance requirements

Q56.4. Assistance provided to help States reach performance goals 

Q56.5. Quality of support provided for collecting and submitting quality data

NDTAC 

Q56.3a. Guidance provided to meet program compliance requirements

Q56.4a. Assistance provided to help States reach performance goals 

Q56.5a. Quality of support provided for collecting and submitting quality data
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 135

ONLY IF Q1=57 Teacher Quality Partnership Program ASK 1-7 BELOW

Q57.1. Which best describes how often you interact with Teacher Quality Partnership Division staff? 

a. Daily 

b. Weekly 

c. Monthly 

d. A few times a year 

e. Once a year 

f. Less than once a year

Q57.2. When you interact with Teacher Quality Partnership Division Staff what is the quality of the customer 

service provided to you?

a. Excellent

b. Very Good

c. Average

d. Fair

e. Poor

Please rate the following using a 10-point scale, where "1" means poor and "10" means excellent. 

Q57.3. Accessibility and responsiveness of TQP program staff

Q57.4. Clarity of information provided by TQP program staff

Q57.5. 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 

Q57.6. How can we improve the content and navigation of our online resource, https://oese.ed.gov/offices/officeofdiscretionary-grants-support-services/effective-educator-development-programs/teacher-qualitypartnership/ in order to make your experience more useful? 

Q57.7. What recommendations would you like to make to the TQP program staff to assist you in administering 

your grant more effectively? 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 136

ONLY IF Q1=58 School Climate Transformation Grants (SEAs)

Q58.1 How often do you receive technical assistance (email communications, written guidance, webinars, 

meetings/conferences, in-person trainings or site-specific support) from the OSSS office?

a. At least weekly

b. Monthly

c. Quarterly

d. Yearly

Q58.2 On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is “Poor” and 10 is “Excellent,” how helpful is that technical assistance? 

Q58.3 Which form of technical assistance do you find most helpful in the completion of your grant? 

a. Written guidance

b. Email communication

c. Annual meetings/conferences

d. In-person training or site-specific support

e. Other (please specify)

Q58.4 What specific type of technical assistance content would be most useful to you in the successful completion 

of your grant(s)? Please select up to 3 options from the list below:

a. using data for effective student outcomes

b. leveraging alignment, integration and sustainability

c. effectiveness and efficiency of communications

d. leveraging public/private partnerships for sustainability 

e. federal project management

f. federal grant fiscal management

g. federal grant contracting do’s and don’ts

h. federal grant regulations

i. federal grant administration

j. Other (please specify)
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 137

ONLY IF Q1=59 Native Hawaiian Education Act Program/Education of Native Hawaiian ASK 1-4 BELOW

Q59.1 Please rate the knowledge of the U.S. Department of Education staff on NHE program grant administration 

issues and on program administration issues as they assist your grant project. Please use a 10-point scale with “1” 

being “poor” and “10” being “excellent.”

Q59.2 Have NHE staff initiated technical assistance with you during the past 3-6 months?

a. Yes

b. No

Q59.3 [IF Q59.2=a] Where and how did the technical assistance or support take place (Select all that apply)

a. Project Directors’ meeting sponsored by the Department

b. Conference call/email exchange with your Program Officer

c. Program Officer

d. Other Program (or the Department) staff site visit

Q59.4What technical assistant topics can the NHE program provide to support the implementation of your grant 

projects more effectively? (Open-ended)
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 138

ONLY IF Q1=60 Alaska Native Education Program ASK 1-9 BELOW

Q60.1 How long have you served as the ANE Project Director?

a. Less than one year

b. More than one year

c. I am not the ANE Project Director but I have served in a leadership (decision-making) capacity for 

this program for less than one year.

d. I am not the ANE Project Director but I have served in a leadership (decision-making) capacity for 

this program for more than one year.

Q60.2 Please rate the knowledge of the U.S. Department of Education staff on ANE program grant 

administration issues and on program administration issues as they assist your grant project. Please use a 10-point 

scale with “1” being “poor” and “10” being “excellent.”

Q60.3 When you were preparing your application, how easy was it for you to locate and understand the 

information in the application package? Please rate the following on a scale from “1” to “10”, where “1” is “very 

difficult” and “10” is “very easy.”

a. Program Purpose

b. Program Priorities

c. Selection Criteria

d. Review Process

e. Budget Information and Forms

f. Deadline for Submission

g. Dollar Limit on Awards

h. Page Limitation Instructions

i. Formatting Instructions

j. Program Contact

Q60.4 Has your program officer initiated technical assistance or conducted a Quarterly Monitoring Call with you 

or anyone on the ANE staff during the past 3-6 months?

a. Yes

b. No

Q60.5 [IF Q60.4=YES] Where and how did the technical assistance or support take place (Select all that apply)

a. Project Directors’ meeting sponsored by the Department

b. Conference call/email exchange with your Program Officer

c. Program Officer

d. Other Program (or the Department) staff site visit

e. Monitoring contractor (Please specify)

f. National association meeting (Please specify)

g. Other (Please specify)

Q60.6 How helpful is the information on the ANE website? Please use a 10-point scale with “1” being “not very 

helpful” and “10” being “very helpful.”

Q60.7 What technical assistant topics can the ANE program provide at Project Directors’ meetings to support the 

implementation of your grant projects more effectively? (Open-ended)

Q60.8 How easy is it to navigate the web-based annual performance report process? Please use a 10-point scale 

with ”1” being “not very easy” and “10” being “very easy.”

Q60.9 What suggestions do you have for improving the annual performance report process? (Open-ended)
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 139

ONLY IF Q1=61 Innovative Approaches to Literacy ASK 1-5 BELOW

Think about the technical support and assistance you have received from the U.S. Department of Education staff 

and the technical assistance provider 2M Research. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “not very satisfied” and “10” 

is “very satisfied”, please rate the following items.

Q61.1. Responsiveness to questions.

Q61.2. The quality of information or feedback received from the program officer.

Q61.3. Your overall level of satisfaction with the service provided by the program officer.

Q61.4. How helpful is the information and guidance provided to you by the US Department of Education staff on 

project implementation and evaluation?

Q61.5. How helpful is the information and guidance provided to you by the US Department of Education staff on 

performance reporting (annual performance reports and ad hoc performance reports)?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 140

ONLY IF Q1=62 High School Equivalency Program (HEP) – Migrant Education ASK 1-10 BELOW

As it relates to the High School Equivalency Program (HEP), please rate the following using a 10 point scale, where 

“1” means poor and “10” means excellent. 

Q62.1. Accessibility and responsiveness of program staff 

Q62.2. Timely resolution of questions by program staff 

Q62.3. Clarity of information provided by program staff 

Q62.4. Usefulness and relevance of the strategies for technical assistance (e.g., webinars, policy documents, 

meetings, conference calls) 

Q62.5. Usefulness of the updated technical assistance resources pages on the HEP ed.gov website.

Q62.6. What additional topics would you like discussed during HEP meetings, webinars, or phone calls to help you 

implement a high-quality program? 

Q62.7. What could the HEP team do to improve the content of technical assistance? 

Q62.8. What could the HEP team do to improve the structure or format of technical assistance? 

Q62.9. Please share any comments on how the HEP team can better support your work. Please include any ideas 

that the HEP team may use to better support your work as it relates to your project’s specific needs

Q62.10. Are there any other federal programs providing you technical assistance in form and/or content the 

HEP/CAMPteam should consider as a model? 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 141

ONLY IF Q1=63 College Assistance Migrant Program ASK 1-10 BELOW

As it relates to the College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP), please rate the following using a 10 point scale, 

where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent. 

Q63.1. Accessibility and responsiveness of program staff 

Q63.2. Timely resolution of questions by program staff 

Q63.3. Clarity of information provided by program staff 

Q63.4. Usefulness and relevance of the strategies for technical assistance (e.g., webinars, policy documents, 

meetings, conference calls) 

Q63.5. Usefulness of the updated technical assistance resources pages on the CAMP ed.gov website.

Q63.6. What additional topics would you like discussed during CAMP meetings, webinars, or phone calls to help 

you implement a high-quality program? 

Q63.7. What could the CAMP team do to improve the content of technical assistance? 

Q63.8. What could the CAMP team do to improve the structure or format of technical assistance? 

Q63.9. Please share any comments on how the CAMP team can better support your work. Please include any 

ideas that the HEP team may use to better support your work as it relates to your project’s specific needs. 

Q63.10. Are there any other federal programs providing you technical assistance in form and/or content the 

HEP/CAMPteam should consider as a model? 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 142

ONLY IF Q1=64 Full Service Community Schools ASK 1-5 BELOW

Q64.1 Did you ask your ED Program Contact (Program Officer) for assistance in areas not related to fiscal or 

grant administration issues?

a. Yes

b. No

Q64.2 [If Q64.1=Yes] On a scale from 1 to 10, where “1” is “Poor” and “10” is “Excellent,” please rate the ED 

Program Contacts quality of assistance. 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 143

ONLY IF Q1=65 Statewide Family Engagement Centers ASK 1-5 BELOW

Think about your experience with receiving technical assistance from the School Choice and Improvement Division. 

On a 10-point scale where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent please rate the School Choice and Improvement 

Division according to the following:

Q65.1 Ability to resolve issues

Q65.2 Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication

Q65.3 Frequency of communication regarding grant information, deadlines, expectations, requirements, or other 

pertinent information

Q65.4 Your overall level of satisfaction with the service provided by the program officer.

Q65.5 Your satisfaction with the Program Director’s Meeting. 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 144

ONLY IF Q1=66 Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination ASK 1-5 BELOW

Think about the technical support and assistance you have received from the U.S. Department of Education staff 

and the technical assistance provider 2M Research. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “not very satisfied” and “10” 

is “very satisfied”, please rate the following items.

Q66.1. Responsiveness to questions.

Q66.2. The quality of information or feedback received from the program officer.

Q66.3. Your overall level of satisfaction with the service provided by the program officer.

Q66.4. Your satisfaction with the face-to-face AIE Annual Program Director’s Convening. 

Q66.5. How helpful is the information and guidance provided to you by the US Department of Education staff and 

contracted staff (2M Research) on project implementation and evaluation?

Q66.6. How helpful is the information and guidance provided to you by the US Department of Education staff and 

contracted staff (2M Research) on performance reporting (annual performance reports and ad hoc performance 

reports)?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 145

ONLY IF Q1=67 Javits Program ASK 1-7 BELOW

Think about your experience with receiving technical assistance from the Javits program specialist. On a 10-point 

scale where “1” means poor and “10” means excellent please rate your program specialist on:

Q67.1. Responsiveness to questions and timely resolution of general programmatic and financial issues.

Q67.2. The quality of information or feedback received from Javits program staff, including webinars.

Q67.3. Knowledge of and ability to assist with the submission of the Javits interim performance report.

Q67.4. Your overall level of satisfaction with the service provided by the representative.

Q67.5. Frequency of communication regarding grant information, deadlines, expectations, requirements, or other 

pertinent information.

Q67.6. What topics would you like discussed during Javits meetings, webinars, or phone calls to help you 

implement a high-quality program?

Q67.7. Please share any comments and/or ideas on how the Javits team can improve its support of your projectspecific work.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 146

ONLY IF Q1=68 Project Prevent ASK 1-7 BELOW

Think about the one-on-one communication (via phone or email) with your Federal project Officer. On a 10-point 

scale, where “1” is not very effective and “10” is very effective, please rate your Federal Project Officer on the 

following:

Q68.1. Responsiveness to questions about Project Prevent Grant Program requirements and applicable 

Department of Education (EDGAR) and other federal regulations

Q68.2. Timeliness in returning phone calls and responding to emails

Q68.3. Effectiveness in providing technical assistance or guidance regarding the development, revision and 

reporting of budgets, the collection of GPRA data, and the submission of annual performance

Q68.4. Frequency of communication regarding grant information, deadlines, expectations, requirements, or other 

pertinent information

Think about the technical assistance, including meetings, written guidance, webinars, and presentations that you 

receive from the P2 technical assistance team. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is not very effective and “10” is very 

effective, please rate the following:

Q68.5. Relevance and usefulness to your project and program activities

Q68.6. Frequency of communication

Q68.7. Use of technology to deliver services
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 147

ONLY IF Q1=69 Mental Health Demonstration Grants ASK 1-7 BELOW

Think about the one-on-one communication (via phone or email) with your Federal Project Officer. On a 10-point 

scale, where “1” is “Not very effective” and “10” is “Very effective,” please rate your Federal Project Officer on the 

following:

Q69.1. Responsiveness to questions about the Mental Health Demonstration Grant Program

requirements and applicable requirements for receiving and using federal awards found in the Uniform 

Guidance (2 CFR § 200) and other federal regulations

Q69.2. Timeliness in returning phone calls and responding to emails

Q69.3. Effectiveness in providing technical assistance or guidance regarding the development, revision 

and reporting of budgets, the collection of GPRA data, and the submission of annual performance 

reports

Q69.4. Frequency of communicating regarding grant information, deadlines, expectations, requirements, 

or other pertinent information

Think about the technical assistance, including meetings, written guidance, webinars, and presentations that you 

receive from the P2 technical assistance team. On a 10-point scale, where “1” is “Not very effective” and “10” is 

“Very effective,” please rate the following:

Q69.5. Relevance and usefulness to your project and program activities

Q69.6. Frequency of communication

Q69.7. Use of technology to deliver services
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 148

ONLY IF Q1=70 School Climate Transformation Grants (LEA)

[No custom questions]
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 149

Appendix B: 

Attribute Tables and Non-Scored

Responses
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report 

Grantee Satisfaction Survey 

2020 150

Dept of Ed OGA – Aggregate (2019 v 2020) 

Score Table 

2019 2020

Difference Significant 

Difference 

Aggregate 

Impact Scores Scores 

Sample Size 1,485 2,408 

ED Staff/Coordination 82 87 5 ↑ 1.0 

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and 

procedures 83 89 6 ↑ --

Responsiveness to your questions 80 84 4 ↑ --

Professionalism -- 93 -- --

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 82 85 3 ↑ --

Communication about changes that may affect your program -- 85 -- --

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different program 

offices 80 86 6 ↑ --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in providing 

relevant services 80 84 4 ↑ --

Online Resources 68 75 7 ↑ 0.5 

Ease of finding materials online 67 75 8 ↑ --

Quality of content -- 77 -- --

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 68 75 7 ↑ --

Accuracy of search results -- 76 -- --

Ease of navigation 68 75 7 ↑ --

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- 74 -- --

Documents 77 81 4 ↑ 0.9 

Clarity 77 82 5 ↑ --

Organization of information 78 83 5 ↑ --

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 76 81 5 ↑ --

Relevance to your areas of need 79 82 3 ↑ --

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues that 

you face 75 79 4 ↑ --

Information in Application Package 87 88 1 N/A 

Program Purpose 88 89 1 --

Program Priorities 88 88 0 --

Selection Criteria 85 87 2 ↑ --

Review Process 82 84 2 --

Budget Information and Forms 82 84 2 --

Deadline for Submission 91 91 0 --

Dollar Limit on Awards 88 88 0 --

Page Limitation Instructions 87 88 1 --

Formatting Instructions 85 86 1 --

Program Contact 90 91 1 --

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- 76 -- 1.1 

Clarity of reporting requirements -- 78 -- --

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

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

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

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- 76 -- --

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

Technical Assistance -- 79 -- 1.2 

TA services provided in helping successfully implement grant 

programs/projects -- 82 -- --

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- 79 -- --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing program 

activities -- 78 -- --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in the 

program

-- 75 -- --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via learning 

groups

-- 78 -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- 87 -- --
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report 

Grantee Satisfaction Survey 

2020 151

2019 2020

Difference Significant 

Difference 

Aggregate 

Impact Scores Scores 

Sample Size 1,485 2,408 

ACSI 74 78 4 ↑ N/A 

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 80 83 3 ↑ --

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 71 75 4 ↑ --

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 70 74 4 ↑ --

Trust 81 85 4 ↑ 4.2 

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 81 85 4 ↑ --

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School 

Program 

Technical assistance from OELA office 78 87 9 --

Technical assistance from program officer 78 90 12 ↑ --

Usefulness of OELA website 76 76 0 --

Usefulness of NCELA website 77 76 -1 --

Usefulness of OELA Facebook 53 58 5 --

National Professional Development Program 

Technical assistance from OELA office 80 86 6 --

Technical assistance from program officer 82 82 0 --

Usefulness of OELA website 78 79 1 --

Usefulness of NCELA website 82 86 4 --

Usefulness of OELA Facebook 69 64 -5 --

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) 

Program 

Ease of reporting using the NRS web-based system 76 83 7 ↑ --

Usefulness of the training offered by OCTAE through its 

contract to support NRS 79 81 2 --

Being well-organized 84 88 4 --

Providing pre-planning adequate guidance 90 88 -2 --

Setting expectations for the visit 84 89 5 --

Being up-to-date 88 90 2 --

Relevance of information 87 87 0 --

Usefulness to your program 87 87 0 --

Usefulness of products helping your state meet AEFLA 

program priorities 83 83 0 --

How well TA addresses your program priorities and needs -- 82 -- --

Using state peer reviewers in federal monitoring process -- -- -- --

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State 

Directors 

CAR`s user-friendliness 72 82 10 ↑ --

PCRN’s usefulness to your program 84 83 -1 --

Effectiveness of DATE in helping you implement grant 

programs

-- 86 -- --

TA received on project implementation and budget questions -- 88 -- --

Usefulness and relevance of project director meetings in 

providing TA -- 87 -- --

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program 

PCRN’s usefulness to your program -- 83 -- --

Effectiveness of DATE in helping you implement grant 

programs

-- 78 -- --

TA received on project implementation and budget questions -- 83 -- --

Usefulness and relevance of project director meeting in 

providing TA -- 94 -- --

Native American Career and Technical Education 

Program 

PCRN’s usefulness to your program -- 76 -- --

Effectiveness of DATE in helping you implement grant 

programs

-- 68 -- --

TA received on project implementation and budget questions -- 76 -- --

Usefulness and relevance of project director meeting in 

providing TA -- 79 -- --
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report 

Grantee Satisfaction Survey 

2020 152

2019 2020

Difference Significant 

Difference 

Aggregate 

Impact Scores Scores 

Sample Size 1,485 2,408 

IDEA – State Directors of Special Education (Part B) 

Program 

Clarity of information received in developing applications and 

reports 75 74 -1 --

Timeliness of responses 79 79 0 --

OSEP-funded TA provider 85 89 4 --

Education Department-funded TA provider 62 68 6 --

Professional associations 81 80 -1 --

Conferences where research is presented 74 68 -6 --

Books 52 52 0 --

Journal articles 60 64 4 --

Personal interaction with peers 80 83 3 --

IDEAS that work website 61 68 7 --

The Department`s new IDEA website 60 65 5 --

osep.grads360.org 71 68 -3 --

IDEA – Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities 

Program 

Clarity of information received in developing applications and 

reports 74 84 10 ↑ --

Timeliness of responses 79 86 7 --

OSEP-funded TA provider 88 87 -1 --

Education Department-funded TA provider 46 51 5 --

Professional associations 81 80 -1 --

Conferences where research is presented 70 74 4 --

Books 55 49 -6 --

Journal articles 60 60 0 --

Personal interaction with peers 80 87 7 --

IDEAS that work website 60 58 -2 --

The Department`s new IDEA website 56 59 3 --

osep.grads360.org 70 62 -8 --

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program 

Responsiveness to questions and requests for technical 

assistance 61 71 10 --

Supportiveness in helping complete Unified or Combined 

State Plan 64 70 6 --

Dissemination of subregulatory guidance 61 74 13 ↑ --

Provision of effective training and dissemination of relevant 

information 58 65 7 --

Data Collection and Reporting 56 74 18 ↑ --

Fiscal/Grant Management 67 73 6 --

Programmatic 59 72 13 ↑ --

Technical Assistance 59 71 12 --

Utility of website for entering required data, retrieving and 

revising reports 62 66 4 --

Ease of navigating website 57 64 7 --

Usefulness of information available on the website 57 68 11 ↑ --

Website technical support 67 66 -1 --

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program 

Usefulness of messages that are disseminated via RSA 

listserv -- 75 -- --

Timeliness of messages that are disseminated via RSA 

listserv -- 75 -- --

Effectiveness in training vocational rehabilitation counselors 

for employment -- 94 -- --
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report 

Grantee Satisfaction Survey 

2020 153

2019 2020

Difference Significant 

Difference 

Aggregate 

Impact Scores Scores 

Sample Size 1,485 2,408 

IDEA National Centers Program 

Clarity of information received in developing applications and 

reports -- 100 -- --

Timeliness of responses -- 100 -- --

OSEP-funded TA provider -- 97 -- --

Education Department-funded TA provider -- 78 -- --

Professional associations -- 95 -- --

Conferences where research is presented -- 92 -- --

Books -- 73 -- --

Journal Articles -- 79 -- --

Personal interaction with peers -- 84 -- --

IDEAs that work website -- 62 -- --

The Department’s IDEA website -- 70 -- --

osep.grads360.org -- 50 -- --

GEAR UP 

Responsiveness to your questions -- 79 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulation, policies and 

procedures 79 81 2 --

Ability to resolve issues -- 80 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 81 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 79 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 71 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 77 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 75 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 78 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 72 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 77 -- --

GEAR UP - State 

Responsiveness to your questions -- 76 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 69 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 69 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 71 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 68 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 58 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 64 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 54 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 66 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 63 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 68 -- --

GEAR UP - Partnerships 

Responsiveness to your questions -- 81 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 86 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 85 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 84 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 84 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 76 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 82 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 84 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 82 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 75 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 81 -- --
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report 

Grantee Satisfaction Survey 

2020 154

2019 2020

Difference Significant 

Difference 

Aggregate 

Impact Scores Scores 

Sample Size 1,485 2,408 

Child Care Access Means Parents in School 

Responsiveness to inquiries 80 82 2 --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 86 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 85 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 83 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 82 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 81 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 78 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 86 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 78 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 72 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 79 -- --

Strengthening Institutions Program 

Responsiveness to questions 82 77 -5 --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and 

procedures 86 86 0 --

Ability to resolve issues 87 82 -5 ↓ --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication 85 80 -5 --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues 83 78 -5 --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 78 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 80 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 87 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 78 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 72 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 77 -- --

Post award guidelines -- -- -- --

Performance reports -- -- -- --

Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions 

(ANNH)-Part A program 

Responsiveness to your questions -- 69 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 84 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 80 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 83 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 72 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 81 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 84 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 81 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 78 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 71 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 82 -- --

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program 

Responsiveness to your questions -- 90 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 93 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 92 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 93 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic or financial issues -- 92 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 86 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 84 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 94 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 92 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 90 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 89 -- --
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report 

Grantee Satisfaction Survey 

2020 155

2019 2020

Difference Significant 

Difference 

Aggregate 

Impact Scores Scores 

Sample Size 1,485 2,408 

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions 

Responsiveness to questions 84 82 -2 --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures 85 90 5 ↑ --

Ability to resolve issues 85 86 1 --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication 85 85 0 --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues 84 85 1 --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 79 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 83 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 88 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 83 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 78 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 83 -- --

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic 

Americans Program 

Responsiveness to your questions -- 75 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 77 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 75 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 74 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 76 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 90 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 90 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 84 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 84 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 76 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 79 -- --

Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCU)-Part 

A program 

Responsiveness to your questions -- 85 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 87 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 85 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 81 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 89 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 74 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 86 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 90 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 85 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 88 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 90 -- --

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions Program 

Responsiveness to your questions -- 82 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 89 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 83 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 83 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 80 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 72 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 71 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 78 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 78 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 67 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 79 -- --
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report 

Grantee Satisfaction Survey 

2020 156

2019 2020

Difference Significant 

Difference 

Aggregate 

Impact Scores Scores 

Sample Size 1,485 2,408 

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander 

Institutions Program 

Responsiveness to your questions -- 94 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 94 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 91 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 90 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 93 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 46 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 63 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 73 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 81 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 80 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 81 -- --

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities (HBCU) program 

Responsiveness to your questions -- 87 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 90 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 93 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 89 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 84 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 80 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 82 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 88 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 87 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 86 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 88 -- --

Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) 

Responsiveness to your questions -- 95 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 94 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 95 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 92 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 92 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 92 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 90 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 90 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 87 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 84 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 92 -- --

Student Support Services 

Responsiveness to your questions -- 74 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 80 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 77 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 76 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 71 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 45 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 57 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 75 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 68 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 64 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 70 -- --
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report 

Grantee Satisfaction Survey 

2020 157

2019 2020

Difference Significant 

Difference 

Aggregate 

Impact Scores Scores 

Sample Size 1,485 2,408 

Upward Bound 

Responsiveness to your questions -- 72 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 80 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 74 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 76 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 69 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 65 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 69 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 80 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 73 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 69 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 76 -- --

Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need Program 

Responsiveness to your questions -- 96 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 96 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 93 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 93 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 95 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 87 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 73 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 91 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 91 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 91 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 93 -- --

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships program 

Responsiveness to your questions -- 95 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 95 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 95 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 95 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 95 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 72 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 73 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 84 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 92 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 89 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 92 -- --

Supports instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding -- 94 -- --

Supports work in language aspects of professional and other 

fields of study -- 94 -- --

Supports research and training in international studies -- 95 -- --

Teaching of any modern foreign language -- 95 -- --

Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding -- 94 -- --

Research and training in international studies -- 93 -- --

Language aspects of professional and other fields of study -- 93 -- --

Instruction and research on issues in world affairs -- 93 -- --
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report 

Grantee Satisfaction Survey 

2020 158

2019 2020

Difference Significant 

Difference 

Aggregate 

Impact Scores Scores 

Sample Size 1,485 2,408 

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) 

Responsiveness to your questions -- 72 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 91 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 83 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 76 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 73 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 57 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 61 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 73 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 78 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 73 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 77 -- --

Supports instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding -- 98 -- --

Supports work in language aspects of professional and other 

fields of study -- 96 -- --

Supports research and training in international studies -- 99 -- --

Teaching of any modern foreign language -- 92 -- --

Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding -- 99 -- --

Research and training in international studies -- 97 -- --

Language aspects of professional and other fields of study -- 91 -- --

Instruction and research on issues in world affairs -- 94 -- --

American Overseas Research Centers program 

Responsiveness to your questions -- 96 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 97 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 96 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 97 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 93 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 83 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 86 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 89 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 96 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 92 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 96 -- --

Supports instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding -- 96 -- --

Supports work in language aspects of professional and other 

fields of study -- 96 -- --

Supports research and training in international studies -- 98 -- --

Teaching of any modern foreign language -- 95 -- --

Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding -- 98 -- --

Research and training in international studies -- 98 -- --

Language aspects of professional and other fields of study -- 93 -- --

Instruction and research on issues in world affairs -- 98 -- --
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report 

Grantee Satisfaction Survey 

2020 159

2019 2020

Difference Significant 

Difference 

Aggregate 

Impact Scores Scores 

Sample Size 1,485 2,408 

Language Resource Centers program 

Responsiveness to your questions -- 98 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 100 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 100 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 100 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 100 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 81 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 78 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 84 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 94 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 94 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 95 -- --

Supports instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding -- 87 -- --

Supports work in language aspects of professional and other 

fields of study -- 87 -- --

Supports research and training in international studies -- 83 -- --

Teaching of any modern foreign language -- 95 -- --

Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding -- 90 -- --

Research and training in international studies -- 84 -- --

Language aspects of professional and other fields of study -- 90 -- --

Instruction and research on issues in world affairs -- 75 -- --

Group Projects Abroad program 

Responsiveness to your questions -- 91 -- --

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and 

procedures -- 93 -- --

Ability to resolve issues -- 94 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 92 -- --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial 

issues -- 92 -- --

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 92 -- --

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation -- 95 -- --

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees -- 90 -- --

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 92 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 87 -- --

Clarity of communication -- 90 -- --

Supports instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding -- 92 -- --

Supports work in language aspects of professional and other 

fields of study -- 84 -- --

Supports research and training in international studies -- 92 -- --

Teaching of any modern foreign language -- 92 -- --

Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding -- 96 -- --

Research and training in international studies -- 92 -- --

Language aspects of professional and other fields of study -- 93 -- --

Instruction and research on issues in world affairs -- 95 -- --

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local 

Educational Agencies Program 

Provides assistance that enhances capacity to implement 69 68 -1 --

Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs to 

implement 67 65 -2 --

Helps address implementation challenges 65 66 1 --

Provides information about key changes to requirements 68 69 1 --
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report 

Grantee Satisfaction Survey 

2020 160

2019 2020

Difference Significant 

Difference 

Aggregate 

Impact Scores Scores 

Sample Size 1,485 2,408 

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (Title II, Part 

A)

Provides assistance that enhances capacity to implement 59 63 4 --

Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs to 

implement 59 67 8 --

Helps address implementation challenges 63 63 0 --

Provides information about key changes to requirements 66 67 1 --

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 

7003)

Responsiveness to answering questions -- 88 -- --

Supportiveness in helping you complete your application -- 91 -- --

Knowledge about technical material -- 90 -- --

Effectiveness in providing TA or instructions regarding 

performance reports 80 82 2 --

Ease of reaching person who could address concern 83 87 4 --

Ability to resolve your issue 85 87 2 --

21st Century Community Learning Centers 

Provides assistance that enhances the capacity to implement 80 85 5 --

Provides support that is timely and responsive to my State’s 

needs to implement 77 86 9 ↑ --

Helps my State address grant implementation challenges -- 85 -- --

Provides information about key changes to requirements -- 85 -- --

Helpfulness of information provided 85 89 4 --

Likelihood to recommend Y4Y website 91 96 5 ↑ --

Student Support and Academic Enrichment 

Usefulness of the NCSSLE website -- 73 -- --

Usefulness of the Title IV Part A Portal -- 84 -- --

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III, Part 

A)

Provides assistance that enhances capacity to implement 62 65 3 --

Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs to 

implement 64 62 -2 --

Helps address implementation challenges 63 63 0 --

Provides information about key changes to requirements 73 75 2 --

Grants for State Assessments 

Provides assistance that enhances capacity to implement 77 79 2 --

Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs to 

implement 80 84 4 --

Helps address implementation challenges 75 83 8 --

Provides information about key changes to requirements 82 83 1 --

Teacher and school leader incentive grants (ESEA II-B-1)

Assistance in improving program planning and implementation 72 87 15 --

Providing relevant information and ideas 72 90 18 --

Connecting you with other experts or practitioners 78 88 10 --

Relevant knowledge of program activities 73 83 10 --

Quality and helpfulness of communication 75 79 4 --

Charter Schools Program Grants to State Entities 

Dissemination of resources and opportunities the CSP 

provides 60 78 18 ↑ --

Comms and info accessible and provided in timely manner 62 76 14 ↑ --

Technical assistance receive on project implementation and 

budget questions 65 84 19 ↑ --

Assistance gives opportunity to give staff an understanding of 

your project 65 78 13 ↑ --

Guidance CSP provides on Federal grant compliance 57 64 7 --
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report 

Grantee Satisfaction Survey 

2020 161

2019 2020

Difference Significant 

Difference 

Aggregate 

Impact Scores Scores 

Sample Size 1,485 2,408 

Comprehensive Literacy State Development 

Responsiveness to questions 91 84 -7 --

Timely resolution of general programmatic and financial 

issues 87 83 -4 --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication 89 89 0 --

Quality of information or feedback received from SRCL 

program officer 93 87 -6 --

Frequency of communication 89 87 -2 --

Service provided by the program officer 93 85 -8 --

Face-to-face SRCL Program Director`s National Convening 90 93 3 --

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter 

Schools 

Dissemination of resources and opportunities the CSP 

provides 59 55 -4 --

Comms and info accessible and provided in timely manner 50 54 4 --

Technical assistance receive on project implementation and 

budget questions 63 53 -10 --

Assistance gives opportunity to give staff an understanding of 

your project 54 52 -2 --

Guidance CSP provides on Federal grant compliance 50 46 -4 --

Education Innovation and Research Programs 

Assistance in improving your evaluation planning and 

implementation -- 86 -- --

Providing relevant information and ideas -- 86 -- --

Connecting with other experts or practitioners working on 

similar evaluations -- 74 -- --

Implementing a meaningful, rigorous evaluation -- 64 -- --

Gaining helpful tech assistance to conduct a meaningful, 

rigorous evaluation -- 80 -- --

Dissemination of resources and opportunities provided by 

i3/EIR -- 71 -- --

Communication/information is accessible and provided in 

timely/responsive manner -- 76 -- --

Magnet Schools Assistance Program 

Program Officer quality of assistance 94 83 -11 --

Program Officer responsiveness 79 80 1 --

MSAP Center technical assistance support 85 86 1 --

GRADS 360 system 60 62 2 --

Overall effectiveness of assistance received from MSAP 82 83 1 --

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education 

Agencies Program 

Timeliness of staff 85 90 5 --

Quality of support 84 85 1 --

Comprehensiveness of documents 82 86 4 --

Ease of using EASIE system 84 84 0 --

Quality of training via webinars 81 81 0 --

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program 

Responsiveness in answering questions - Tech Assistance 

Center (NCHE) 91 94 3 --

Guidance provided in responses to questions - Tech 

Assistance Center (NCHE) -- 91 -- --

Meeting program compliance requirements - US Department 

of Education 88 87 -1 --

Assisting you to impact performance results - US Department 

of Education 81 85 4 --

Support quality for collecting/submitting data - U.S. 

Department of Education -- 85 -- --

Meeting program compliance requirements - Tech Assistance 

Center (NCHE) 89 92 3 --

Assisting you to impact performance results - Tech Assistance 

Center (NCHE) 85 90 5 --
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report 

Grantee Satisfaction Survey 

2020 162

2019 2020

Difference Significant 

Difference 

Aggregate 

Impact Scores Scores 

Sample Size 1,485 2,408 

Support quality for collecting/submitting data - Tech 

Assistance Center (NCHE) -- 92 -- --

REAP-Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program 

Clarity of instructions for accessing and completing the 

application -- 86 -- --

Ease of accessing the application using the unique link in the 

invitation email -- 88 -- --

Navigating the application on the MAX.gov survey tool -- 84 -- --

Preparing and completing the information requested on the 

application -- 88 -- --

Ease of submitting the application -- 90 -- --

Utilizing the confirmation email -- 89 -- --

Promise Neighborhoods 

ED Program Contacts quality of assistance 87 86 -1 --

Urban Institute`s Needs Assessment Quality 79 75 -4 --

Urban Institute`s other services 76 74 -2 --

SCORECARD system 77 65 -12 --

GRADS 360 system 53 52 -1 --

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program 

Assistance in improving program planning and implementation 71 64 -7 --

Providing relevant information and ideas 74 64 -10 --

Connecting you with other experts or practitioners 74 72 -2 --

Implementing a meaningful, rigorous evaluation 61 48 -13 --

Gaining helpful tech assistance to conduct meaningful, 

rigorous evaluation 68 54 -14 --

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002) 

Impact Aid staff`s responsiveness to answering questions 95 89 -6 ↓ --

Impact Aid staff`s supportiveness in helping complete 

application 97 90 -7 ↓ --

Impact Aid staff`s knowledge about technical material 97 89 -8 ↓ --

Effectiveness of documents in helping complete application -- 84 -- --

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special 

Projects for Indian Children 

Usefulness and relevance of webinar-based technical 

assistance 75 80 5 --

Usefulness and relevance of project director meeting technical 

assistance 74 84 10 ↑ --

Usefulness and relevance of technical assistance resources 

on the OIE web site 67 72 5 --

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency 

Programs 

Responsiveness in answering questions - Tech Assistance 

Center (NDTAC) 87 84 -3 --

Sufficiency of the guidance provided in responses to 

questions -- 86 -- --

Meeting program compliance requirements - US Department 

of Education 60 72 12 --

Assisting you to impact performance results - US Department 

of Education 57 74 17 ↑ --

Support quality for collecting/submitting data - US Department 

of Education -- 77 -- --

Meeting program compliance requirements - Tech Assistance 

Center (NDTAC) 80 87 7 --

Assisting to impact performance results - Tech Assistance 

Center (NDTAC) 78 85 7 --

Support quality for collecting/submitting data - Tech 

Assistance Center (NDTAC) -- 85 -- --

Teacher Quality Partnership Program 

Accessibility and responsiveness of TQP program staff -- 90 -- --

Clarity of information provided by TQP program staff -- 88 -- --

Monitoring and reports sufficiently help program staff 

understand your project -- 92 -- --
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report 

Grantee Satisfaction Survey 

2020 163

2019 2020

Difference Significant 

Difference 

Aggregate 

Impact Scores Scores 

Sample Size 1,485 2,408 

School Climate Transformation Grants (SEAs) program 

Helpfulness of technical assistance -- 83 -- --

Native Hawaiian Education Act Program/Education of 

Native Hawaiian 

Knowledge of staff on program grant administration issues -- 92 -- --

Alaska Native Education Program 

Knowledge of grant and program administration issues -- 81 -- --

Program purpose -- 84 -- --

Program priorities -- 85 -- --

Selection criteria -- 85 -- --

Review process -- 86 -- --

Budget information and forms -- 86 -- --

Deadline for submission -- 88 -- --

Dollar limit on awards -- 84 -- --

Page limitation instructions -- 88 -- --

Formatting instructions -- 88 -- --

Program contact -- 87 -- --

Helpfulness of information on the website -- 67 -- --

Ease of navigating performance report on web -- 63 -- --

Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program 

Responsiveness to questions -- 86 -- --

Quality of information or feedback received from IAL program 

staff -- 88 -- --

Overall satisfaction with service provided by the 

representative -- 89 -- --

Helpfulness of project implementation and evaluation -- 86 -- --

Helpfulness of performance reporting -- 85 -- --

High School Equivalency Program - Migrant Education 

Accessibility and responsiveness of program staff -- 91 -- --

Timely resolution of questions by program staff -- 88 -- --

Clarity of information provided by program staff -- 89 -- --

Usefulness and relevance of technical assistance strategies -- 91 -- --

Usefulness of updated technical assistance resources pages 

on HEP.ed.gov -- 85 -- --

College Assistance Migrant Program 

Accessibility and responsiveness of program staff -- 90 -- --

Timely resolution of questions by program staff -- 87 -- --

Clarity of information provided by program staff -- 91 -- --

Usefulness and relevance of the strategies for technical 

assistance -- 92 -- --

Usefulness of updated technical assistance resources pages 

on CAMP.ed.gov -- 88 -- --

Full-service community schools (ESEA IV-F-2, section 

4625) program 

ED Program Contacts quality of assistance -- 100 -- --

Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) program 

Ability to resolve issues -- 100 -- --

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication -- 100 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 98 -- --

Overall satisfaction with service provided by the program 

officer -- 100 -- --

Satisfaction with the Program Director’s Meeting -- 90 -- --
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report 

Grantee Satisfaction Survey 

2020 164

2019 2020

Difference Significant 

Difference 

Aggregate 

Impact Scores Scores 

Sample Size 1,485 2,408 

Assistance for Arts Education Development and 

Dissemination Program 

Responsiveness to questions -- 88 -- --

Quality of information or feedback received from program 

officer -- 90 -- --

Overall satisfaction with service provided by the program 

officer -- 88 -- --

Satisfaction with face-to-face AIE Annual Program Director’s 

Convening -- 92 -- --

Helpfulness of staff on project implementation and evaluation -- 80 -- --

Helpfulness of staff on performance reporting -- 81 -- --

Javits Program 

Timeliness and Responsiveness of general programmatic and 

financial issues -- 75 -- --

Quality of information or feedback received from Javits 

program staff -- 81 -- --

Knowledge and ability to assist with submission of interim 

performance report -- 82 -- --

Overall satisfaction with service provided by the 

representative -- 78 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 73 -- --

Project Prevent 

Responsiveness to questions about Project Prevent Grant 

Program requirements -- 93 -- --

Timeliness in returning phone calls and responding to emails -- 90 -- --

Effectiveness in providing technical assistance or guidance -- 93 -- --

Frequency of communication -- 92 -- --

Technical assistance - relevance and usefulness -- 90 -- --

Technical assistance - frequency of communication -- 90 -- --

Use of technology to deliver services -- 93 -- --

Mental Health Demonstration Grants program 

Responsiveness to questions about program requirements -- 84 -- --

Timeliness in returning phone calls and responding to emails -- 84 -- --

Effectiveness in providing technical assistance or guidance -- 85 -- --

Frequency of communicating -- 81 -- --

Technical assistance - relevance and usefulness -- 85 -- --

Technical assistance - frequency of communication -- 84 -- --

Use of technology to deliver services -- 84 -- --
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 165

Dept of Ed OGA – Aggregate (2019 v 2020)

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Program

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program 1% 16 1% 15

National Professional Development Program 3% 45 2% 51

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) Program 3% 34 2% 41

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors 2% 26 1% 25

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program -- -- 0% 2

Native American Career and Technical Education Program -- -- 1% 20

IDEA – State Directors of Special Education (Part B) Program 2% 30 1% 23

IDEA – Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program 3% 36 1% 22

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program 3% 38 1% 31

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program -- -- 0% 12

IDEA National Centers Program -- -- 0% 11

GEAR UP - State -- -- 1% 16

GEAR UP - Partnerships -- -- 2% 44

Child Care Access Means Parents in School 9% 122 5% 110

Strengthening Institutions Program 11% 144 4% 107

Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions (ANNH)-

Part A program -- -- 1% 23

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program -- -- 1% 29

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions 9% 116 5% 110

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans 

Program -- -- 1% 15

Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCU)-Part A program -- -- 0% 8

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions Program -- -- 0% 12

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions 

Program -- -- 1% 23

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) 

program

-- -- 1% 26

Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI) -- -- 1% 15

Student Support Services -- -- 5% 110

Upward Bound -- -- 4% 98

Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need Program -- -- 2% 52

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships program -- -- 4% 92

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) -- -- 1% 15

American Overseas Research Centers program -- -- 0% 11

Language Resource Centers program -- -- 0% 7

Group Projects Abroad program -- -- 1% 21

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies 

Program 2% 24 1% 21

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (Title II, Part A) 1% 17 1% 26

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003) 4% 50 4% 100

21st Century Community Learning Centers 3% 42 2% 49

Student Support and Academic Enrichment 2% 22 1% 36

Immediate Aid to Restart School Operations -- -- 0% 5

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III, Part A) 2% 21 1% 26

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C) 3% 35 1% 34

Grants for State Assessments 2% 32 1% 29

Teacher and school leader incentive grants (ESEA II-B-1) 1% 19 1% 14

Charter Schools Program Grants to State Entities 2% 26 1% 17

Comprehensive Literacy State Development 1% 10 1% 14

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools 1% 12 1% 18

Education Innovation and Research Programs 3% 40 2% 44

Magnet Schools Assistance Program 2% 29 1% 33

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies 

Program 4% 49 3% 72

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program 2% 29 1% 29
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 166

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

REAP-Rural and Low Income School (RLIS) Program 2% 31 1% 33

REAP-Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program 6% 83 2% 53

Promise Neighborhoods 1% 11 0% 12

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program 1% 14 1% 18

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002) 3% 47 4% 96

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects for Indian 

Children 3% 39 2% 52

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs 2% 25 1% 24

Teacher Quality Partnership Program -- -- 1% 21

School Climate Transformation Grants (SEAs) program -- -- 0% 11

Native Hawaiian Education Act Program/Education of Native 

Hawaiian -- -- 1% 24

Alaska Native Education Program -- -- 1% 32

Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program -- -- 1% 31

High School Equivalency Program - Migrant Education -- -- 2% 39

College Assistance Migrant Program -- -- 2% 42

Full-service community schools (ESEA IV-F-2, section 4625) 

program

-- -- 1% 18

Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) program -- -- 0% 8

Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination 

Program -- -- 1% 13

Javits Program -- -- 1% 30

Project Prevent -- -- 1% 15

Mental Health Demonstration Grants program -- -- 1% 19

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEAs) program 3% 40 2% 53

Number of Respondents 1,485 2,408

Formula vs Discretionary

Formula 43% 633 31% 755

Discretionary 57% 852 69% 1,653

Number of Respondents 1,485 2,408

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 37% 555 47% 1,143

Agree 51% 750 44% 1,057

Disagree 8% 117 6% 148

Strongly disagree 2% 30 1% 36

Does not apply 2% 33 1% 24

Number of Respondents 1,485 2,408

Job role

Project/State Director 61% 902 65% 1,571

School Officer 2% 35 2% 46

Grant Coordinator 20% 292 16% 374

Superintendent 4% 58 4% 101

Business Manager 6% 94 4% 97

Other 7% 104 9% 219

Number of Respondents 1,485 2,408

Length of time in role

Less than one year 13% 199 9% 219

Between 1 - 3 years 33% 487 37% 881

Between 4 - 10 years 34% 510 32% 782

More than 10 years 19% 289 22% 526

Number of Respondents 1,485 2,408
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 167

21st Century Community Learning Centers

Score Table

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 26 29 36 41 37 42 49

ED Staff/Coordination 76 73 71 82 78 85 87

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 78 76 74 83 83 84 91

Responsiveness to your questions 80 68 65 78 77 83 83

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 95

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 75 76 67 81 76 83 80

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 70 67 72 84 78 86 --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 72 59 73 84 82 84 87

Online Resources 56 61 60 70 74 69 71

Ease of finding materials online 53 62 60 71 69 69 72

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 58 62 61 69 70 67 70

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Ease of navigation 58 65 65 70 76 70 73

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Documents 65 63 68 70 73 79 79

Clarity 66 63 69 71 74 80 80

Organization of information 69 66 73 73 76 82 83

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 61 61 67 67 72 77 77

Relevance to your areas of need 66 67 71 72 76 83 80

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 61 58 63 68 69 74 77

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

ACSI 53 54 59 67 68 74 80

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 60 60 65 73 74 80 86

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 48 52 56 63 64 74 77

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 48 50 56 64 66 68 75

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 80 91

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 80 91
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 168

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 26 29 36 41 37 42 49

21st Century Community Learning Centers

Provides assistance that enhances the capacity to 

implement -- -- -- -- -- 80 85

Provides support that is timely and responsive to my 

State’s needs to implement -- -- -- -- -- 77 86

Helps my State address grant implementation challenges -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Provides information about key changes to requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Helpfulness of information provided -- -- 77 84 88 85 89

Likelihood to recommend Y4Y website -- -- 89 89 92 91 96
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 169

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 29% 12 49% 24

Agree 60% 25 47% 23

Disagree 12% 5 4% 2

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 42 49

Job role

Project/State Director 81% 34 82% 40

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 7% 3 8% 4

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 12% 5 10% 5

Number of Respondents 42 49

Length of time in role

Less than one year 19% 8 2% 1

Between 1 - 3 years 19% 8 39% 19

Between 4 - 10 years 43% 18 41% 20

More than 10 years 19% 8 18% 9

Number of Respondents 42 49

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 65% 32

Did not receive 0% 0 35% 17

Number of Respondents 0 49
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 170

Adult Education and Family Literacy to State Directors of Adult Education

Score Table

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 20 38 32 31 42 34 41

ED Staff/Coordination 91 85 83 84 89 85 91

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 94 87 85 86 91 89 93

Responsiveness to your questions 92 87 84 85 91 89 93

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 97

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 86 81 76 81 86 84 87

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 86 86 85 83 87 83 90

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 93 82 83 81 87 81 88

Online Resources 76 79 73 74 75 68 72

Ease of finding materials online 69 74 68 69 69 67 69

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 73 79 73 72 75 67 71

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Ease of navigation 71 74 69 72 73 67 71

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Documents 84 79 77 80 83 83 86

Clarity 85 82 78 80 84 84 86

Organization of information 88 82 81 84 84 85 89

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 83 78 73 75 81 81 83

Relevance to your areas of need 83 80 83 86 87 85 88

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 81 75 70 76 78 81 82

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

ACSI 75 75 72 72 75 76 81

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 80 82 78 79 81 83 86

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 73 71 73 69 74 74 79

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 72 71 66 68 71 72 76

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 93 88

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 93 88
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 171

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 20 38 32 31 42 34 41

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) 

Program

Ease of reporting using the NRS web-based system 88 83 82 80 80 76 82

Usefulness of the training offered by OCTAE through its 

contract to support NRS 88 79 79 78 80 79 81

Being well-organized 88 85 87 82 -- 84 88

Providing pre-planning adequate guidance 85 87 90 83 -- 90 88

Setting expectations for the visit 86 87 90 85 -- 84 89

Being up-to-date 91 90 86 87 90 88 90

Relevance of information 89 88 89 89 88 87 87

Usefulness to your program 85 87 86 87 88 87 87

Usefulness of products helping your state meet AEFLA 

program priorities 79 78 79 80 83 83 83

How well TA addresses your program priorities and 

needs 81 75 78 76 78 -- 82

Using state peer reviewers in federal monitoring process 83 -- 92 -- -- -- --
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 172

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 47% 16 54% 22

Agree 44% 15 44% 18

Disagree 6% 2 2% 1

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 3% 1 0% 0

Number of Respondents 34 41

Job role

Project/State Director 100% 34 98% 40

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 0% 0

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 2% 1

Number of Respondents 34 41

Length of time in role

Less than one year 15% 5 17% 7

Between 1 - 3 years 24% 8 29% 12

Between 4 - 10 years 47% 16 44% 18

More than 10 years 15% 5 10% 4

Number of Respondents 34 41

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 22% 9

Did not receive 0% 0 78% 32

Number of Respondents 0 41
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 173

Alaska Native Education Program

Score Table

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 26 26 0 25 28 0 32

ED Staff/Coordination 82 80 -- 74 79 -- 84

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 84 83 -- 78 85 -- 91

Responsiveness to your questions 79 76 -- 67 72 -- 74

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 86 85 -- 80 82 -- 86

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 81 84 -- 62 82 -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 77 82 -- 73 79 -- 77

Online Resources 71 66 -- 67 69 -- 72

Ease of finding materials online 65 67 -- 69 69 -- 76

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 74 66 -- 69 70 -- 72

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Ease of navigation 73 67 -- 67 69 -- 69

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Documents 75 70 -- 69 81 -- 75

Clarity 74 69 -- 69 80 -- 74

Organization of information 76 71 -- 71 81 -- 76

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 75 69 -- 68 81 -- 75

Relevance to your areas of need 77 71 -- 72 82 -- 75

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 73 69 -- 65 79 -- 74

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 66

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- 100

ACSI 66 67 -- 64 75 -- 72

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 71 69 -- 68 79 -- 78

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 62 67 -- 60 74 -- 71

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 64 64 -- 63 71 -- 66

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 82
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 174

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 26 26 0 25 28 0 32

Alaska Native Education Program

Knowledge of grant and program administration issues 76 79 -- 78 82 -- 81

Program purpose 85 88 -- 82 89 -- 84

Program priorities 86 88 -- 80 88 -- 85

Selection criteria 83 86 -- 80 89 -- 85

Review process 77 82 -- 79 85 -- 86

Budget information and forms 85 87 -- 83 88 -- 86

Deadline for submission 93 90 -- 85 89 -- 88

Dollar limit on awards 85 88 -- 85 89 -- 84

Page limitation instructions 85 90 -- 82 90 -- 88

Formatting instructions 87 89 -- 80 90 -- 88

Program contact 90 90 -- 84 90 -- 87

Helpfulness of information on the website 66 69 -- 66 71 -- 67

Ease of navigating performance report on web 61 61 -- 63 69 -- 63
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 175

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 0% 0 47% 15

Agree 0% 0 44% 14

Disagree 0% 0 9% 3

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 32

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 56% 18

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 22% 7

Superintendent 0% 0 9% 3

Business Manager 0% 0 3% 1

Other 0% 0 9% 3

Number of Respondents 0 32

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 19% 6

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 34% 11

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 28% 9

More than 10 years 0% 0 19% 6

Number of Respondents 0 32

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 3% 1

Did not receive 0% 0 97% 31

Number of Respondents 0 32

Length of service as Project Director - ANE

Less than one year 0% 0 19% 6

More than one year 0% 0 69% 22

Not Director but served in leadership for less than one year 0% 0 3% 1

Not Director but served in leadership for more than one year 0% 0 9% 3

Number of Respondents 0 32

Program officer initiated tech assistance or Quarterly Monitoring 

Call - ANE

Initiated 0% 0 56% 18

Did not initiate 0% 0 44% 14

Number of Respondents 0 32

Technical assistance took place - ANE~

Project Directors’ meeting sponsored by the Department 0% 0 22% 4

Conference call/email exchange with your Program Officer 0% 0 89% 16

Program Officer 0% 0 39% 7

Other 0% 0 6% 1

Number of Respondents 0 18
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 176

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

Score Table

2020

Sample Size 23

ED Staff/Coordination 81

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures 89

Responsiveness to your questions 65

Professionalism 89

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 84

Communication about changes that may affect your program 81

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different program offices 79

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in providing relevant services 80

Online Resources 76

Ease of finding materials online 72

Quality of content 77

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 75

Accuracy of search results 77

Ease of navigation 78

Look and feel/Visual appearance 76

Information in Application Package 90

Program Purpose 91

Program Priorities 93

Selection Criteria 87

Review Process 87

Budget Information and Forms 88

Deadline for Submission 91

Dollar Limit on Awards 92

Page Limitation Instructions 92

Formatting Instructions 87

Program Contact 91

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements 75

Clarity of reporting requirements 79

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report 74

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically 81

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) 75

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant program/project 77

Your understanding of how ED uses your data 61

Technical Assistance 73

TA services provided in helping successfully implement grant 

programs/projects 73

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program management --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing program activities --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in the program --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via learning groups --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to implement grant project --

ACSI 77

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 83

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 75

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 71

Trust 85

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 85

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

program

Responsiveness to your questions 69

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures 84

Ability to resolve issues 80

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication 83

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues 72

Timeliness of the grant award notification 81

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation 84

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 81

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed 78

Frequency of communication 71

Clarity of communication 82
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 177

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 0% 0 52% 12

Agree 0% 0 39% 9

Disagree 0% 0 9% 2

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 23

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 78% 18

School Officer 0% 0 9% 2

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 9% 2

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 4% 1

Number of Respondents 0 23

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 9% 2

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 22% 5

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 52% 12

More than 10 years 0% 0 17% 4

Number of Respondents 0 23

Preferred method of communication - ANNH - Part A

Individual Email 0% 0 91% 21

Blast/Distribution list email 0% 0 9% 2

Number of Respondents 0 23
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 178

American Overseas Research Centers Program

Score Table

2020

Sample Size 11

ED Staff/Coordination 97

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures 96

Responsiveness to your questions 97

Professionalism 98

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 97

Communication about changes that may affect your program 95

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different program offices 97

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in providing relevant services 98

Online Resources 87

Ease of finding materials online 90

Quality of content 89

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 86

Accuracy of search results 87

Ease of navigation 86

Look and feel/Visual appearance 84

Information in Application Package 95

Program Purpose 97

Program Priorities 97

Selection Criteria 95

Review Process 95

Budget Information and Forms 92

Deadline for Submission 99

Dollar Limit on Awards 92

Page Limitation Instructions 92

Formatting Instructions 96

Program Contact 98

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements 81

Clarity of reporting requirements 88

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report 79

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically 89

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) 88

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant program/project 79

Your understanding of how ED uses your data 71

Technical Assistance 90

TA services provided in helping successfully implement grant 

programs/projects 90

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program management --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing program activities --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in the program --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via learning groups --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to implement grant project --

ACSI 89

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 95

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 88

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 84

Trust 97

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 97
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 179

2020

Sample Size 11

American Overseas Research Centers program

Responsiveness to your questions 96

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures 97

Ability to resolve issues 96

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication 97

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues 93

Timeliness of the grant award notification 83

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation 86

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 89

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed 96

Frequency of communication 92

Clarity of communication 96

Supports instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding 96

Supports work in language aspects of professional and other fields of study 96

Supports research and training in international studies 98

Teaching of any modern foreign language 95

Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding 98

Research and training in international studies 98

Language aspects of professional and other fields of study 93

Instruction and research on issues in world affairs 98
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 180

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 0% 0 91% 10

Agree 0% 0 9% 1

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 11

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 64% 7

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 9% 1

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 27% 3

Number of Respondents 0 11

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 0% 0

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 18% 2

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 27% 3

More than 10 years 0% 0 55% 6

Number of Respondents 0 11

Preferred method of communication - AORC

Individual Email 0% 0 82% 9

Blast/Distribution list email 0% 0 9% 1

Webinar 0% 0 9% 1

Number of Respondents 0 11
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 181

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions Program

Score Table

2020

Sample Size 23

ED Staff/Coordination 91

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures 95

Responsiveness to your questions 94

Professionalism 97

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 90

Communication about changes that may affect your program 88

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different program offices 92

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in providing relevant services 92

Online Resources 65

Ease of finding materials online 65

Quality of content 69

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 66

Accuracy of search results 68

Ease of navigation 67

Look and feel/Visual appearance 56

Information in Application Package 81

Program Purpose 85

Program Priorities 84

Selection Criteria 79

Review Process 77

Budget Information and Forms 74

Deadline for Submission 77

Dollar Limit on Awards 80

Page Limitation Instructions 81

Formatting Instructions 80

Program Contact 90

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements 73

Clarity of reporting requirements 73

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report 74

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically 84

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) 72

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant program/project 74

Your understanding of how ED uses your data 63

Technical Assistance 87

TA services provided in helping successfully implement grant 

programs/projects 87

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program management --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing program activities --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in the program --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via learning groups --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to implement grant project --

ACSI 73

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 82

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 70

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 66

Trust 86

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 86

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions 

Program

Responsiveness to your questions 94

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies and procedures 94

Ability to resolve issues 91

Use of clear and concise written and verbal communication 90

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or financial issues 93

Timeliness of the grant award notification 46

Availability of funds with adequate time for implementation 63

Transparency of how funds are distributed among grantees 73

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed 81

Frequency of communication 80

Clarity of communication 81
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 182

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 0% 0 39% 9

Agree 0% 0 57% 13

Disagree 0% 0 4% 1

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 23

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 61% 14

School Officer 0% 0 4% 1

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 22% 5

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 13% 3

Number of Respondents 0 23

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 0% 0

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 35% 8

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 61% 14

More than 10 years 0% 0 4% 1

Number of Respondents 0 23

Preferred method of communication - AANAPISI

Individual Email 0% 0 83% 19

Blast/Distribution list email 0% 0 9% 2

Telephone 0% 0 4% 1

Other 0% 0 4% 1

Number of Respondents 0 23
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 183

Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination Program

Score Table

2020

Sample Size 13

ED Staff/Coordination 89

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, and procedures 90

Responsiveness to your questions 87

Professionalism 100

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 89

Communication about changes that may affect your program 83

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different program offices --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in providing relevant services 78

Online Resources 80

Ease of finding materials online 79

Quality of content 78

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 76

Accuracy of search results 82

Ease of navigation 81

Look and feel/Visual appearance 82

Documents 82

Clarity 85

Organization of information 87

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 83

Relevance to your areas of need 79

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues that you face 77

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements 81

Clarity of reporting requirements 77

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report 78

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically 94

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) 89

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant program/project 80

Your understanding of how ED uses your data 76

Technical Assistance 81

TA services provided in helping successfully implement grant 

programs/projects 81

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program management 80

Using evidence-based practices in implementing program activities 81

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in the program 74

Creating opportunities to share best practices via learning groups 84

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to implement grant project --

ACSI 72

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 80

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 70

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 65

Trust 90

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 90

Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination Program

Responsiveness to questions 88

Quality of information or feedback received from program officer 90

Overall satisfaction with service provided by the program officer 88

Satisfaction with face-to-face AIE Annual Program Director’s Convening 92

Helpfulness of staff on project implementation and evaluation 80

Helpfulness of staff on performance reporting 81
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 184

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 0% 0 54% 7

Agree 0% 0 31% 4

Disagree 0% 0 15% 2

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 13

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 92% 12

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 8% 1

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 13

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 0% 0

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 69% 9

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 23% 3

More than 10 years 0% 0 8% 1

Number of Respondents 0 13

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 0% 0

Did not receive 0% 0 100% 13

Number of Respondents 0 13
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 185

Carl D Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors

Score Table

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 28 23 24 24 30 26 25

ED Staff/Coordination 89 83 86 85 93 89 93

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 91 89 88 89 94 90 94

Responsiveness to your questions 90 82 85 90 93 93 96

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 98

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 87 78 80 74 91 85 88

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 85 82 85 82 93 89 90

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 86 90 85 85 92 86 90

Online Resources 70 68 76 75 83 80 77

Ease of finding materials online 68 66 74 75 80 81 76

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 69 68 74 75 85 81 76

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Ease of navigation 69 69 77 75 83 76 75

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Documents 81 79 77 80 83 79 82

Clarity 81 78 75 79 83 83 84

Organization of information 81 79 81 82 84 81 84

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 80 76 75 81 83 76 80

Relevance to your areas of need 82 85 79 83 84 84 84

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 81 78 75 77 83 72 79

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

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

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

ACSI 74 71 72 77 79 78 80

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 80 77 80 83 83 84 87

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 70 69 68 75 78 75 77

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 70 65 67 72 74 73 76

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 92 93

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 92 93

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State 

Directors

CAR`s user-friendliness 65 68 69 73 78 72 82

PCRN’s usefulness to your program 76 80 82 81 86 84 83

Effectiveness of DATE in helping you implement grant 

programs

-- -- -- -- -- -- 86

TA received on project implementation and budget 

questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Usefulness and relevance of project director meetings in 

providing TA -- -- -- -- -- -- 87
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 186

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 46% 12 60% 15

Agree 42% 11 40% 10

Disagree 4% 1 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 8% 2 0% 0

Number of Respondents 26 25

Job role

Project/State Director 100% 26 84% 21

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 8% 2

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 8% 2

Number of Respondents 26 25

Length of time in role

Less than one year 27% 7 8% 2

Between 1 - 3 years 38% 10 40% 10

Between 4 - 10 years 27% 7 32% 8

More than 10 years 8% 2 20% 5

Number of Respondents 26 25

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 24% 6

Did not receive 0% 0 76% 19

Number of Respondents 0 25
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 187

Charter Schools Program (CSP) Grants to State Entities

Score Table

2019 2020

Sample Size 26 17

ED Staff/Coordination 72 87

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 72 92

Responsiveness to your questions 67 81

Professionalism -- 94

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 74 84

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- 85

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 74 --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 68 78

Online Resources 57 73

Ease of finding materials online 58 76

Quality of content -- 78

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 55 71

Accuracy of search results -- 71

Ease of navigation 52 69

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- 70

Documents 70 74

Clarity 68 77

Organization of information 71 82

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 71 69

Relevance to your areas of need 71 72

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 66 67

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- 74

Clarity of reporting requirements -- 78

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

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- 78

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- 82

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- 71

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- 58

Technical Assistance -- 78

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- 82

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- 77

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- 79

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- 75

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- 80

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- 85

ACSI 62 71

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 68 80

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 61 64

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 57 67

Trust 69 79

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 69 79

Charter Schools Program Grants to State Entities

Dissemination of resources and opportunities the CSP 

provides 60 78

Comms and info accessible and provided in timely 

manner

62 76

Technical assistance receive on project implementation 

and budget questions 65 84

Assistance gives opportunity to give staff an 

understanding of your project 65 78

Guidance CSP provides on Federal grant compliance 57 64
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 188

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 23% 6 24% 4

Agree 50% 13 76% 13

Disagree 19% 5 0% 0

Strongly disagree 8% 2 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 26 17

Job role

Project/State Director 81% 21 82% 14

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 15% 4 12% 2

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 4% 1 6% 1

Number of Respondents 26 17

Length of time in role

Less than one year 15% 4 6% 1

Between 1 - 3 years 54% 14 71% 12

Between 4 - 10 years 31% 8 18% 3

More than 10 years 0% 0 6% 1

Number of Respondents 26 17

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 59% 10

Did not receive 0% 0 41% 7

Number of Respondents 0 17
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 189

Child Care Access Means Parents in School

Score Table

2019 2020

Sample Size 122 110

ED Staff/Coordination 83 87

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 84 89

Responsiveness to your questions 81 86

Professionalism -- 94

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 82 84

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- 85

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 79 85

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 85 80

Online Resources 65 73

Ease of finding materials online 63 71

Quality of content -- 76

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 65 72

Accuracy of search results -- 76

Ease of navigation 67 73

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- 71

Information in Application Package 88 90

Program Purpose 88 90

Program Priorities 88 90

Selection Criteria 86 87

Review Process 86 86

Budget Information and Forms 84 86

Deadline for Submission 93 93

Dollar Limit on Awards 89 91

Page Limitation Instructions 90 91

Formatting Instructions 88 90

Program Contact 90 90

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- 75

Clarity of reporting requirements -- 74

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

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- 83

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- 73

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- 76

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- 70

Technical Assistance -- 75

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- 75

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- --

ACSI 82 81

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 89 86

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 78 78

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 76 77
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 190

2019 2020

Sample Size 122 110

Trust 87 85

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 87 85

Child Care Access Means Parents in School

Responsiveness to inquiries 80 82

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- 86

Ability to resolve issues -- 85

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- 83

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- 82

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- 81

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- 78

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- 86

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- 78

Frequency of communication -- 72

Clarity of communication -- 79
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 191

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 50% 61 54% 59

Agree 45% 55 44% 48

Disagree 2% 3 3% 3

Strongly disagree 1% 1 0% 0

Does not apply 2% 2 0% 0

Number of Respondents 122 110

Job role

Project/State Director 49% 60 55% 60

School Officer 4% 5 6% 7

Grant Coordinator 27% 33 27% 30

Superintendent 1% 1 1% 1

Business Manager 2% 3 0% 0

Other 16% 20 11% 12

Number of Respondents 122 110

Length of time in role

Less than one year 22% 27 13% 14

Between 1 - 3 years 25% 31 47% 52

Between 4 - 10 years 25% 31 25% 28

More than 10 years 27% 33 15% 16

Number of Respondents 122 110

Preferred method of communication - CCAMPIS

Individual Email 0% 0 88% 97

Blast/Distribution list email 0% 0 2% 2

Telephone 0% 0 5% 6

Webinar 0% 0 2% 2

Other 0% 0 3% 3

Number of Respondents 0 110
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 192

College Assistance Migrant Program

Score Table

2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 38 41 0 42

ED Staff/Coordination 89 91 -- 93

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 91 93 -- 93

Responsiveness to your questions 85 92 -- 91

Professionalism -- -- -- 97

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 91 91 -- 92

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- 93

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 86 91 -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 87 92 -- 92

Online Resources 77 84 -- 83

Ease of finding materials online 75 81 -- 81

Quality of content -- -- -- 84

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 78 84 -- 82

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- 86

Ease of navigation 75 83 -- 82

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- 84

Documents 85 83 -- 91

Clarity 85 82 -- 90

Organization of information 86 82 -- 91

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 85 83 -- 91

Relevance to your areas of need 86 85 -- 92

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 85 83 -- 89

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- 92

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- 91

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- 89

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- 96

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- 93

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- 93

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- 88

Technical Assistance -- -- -- 90

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- 94

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- 91

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- 85

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- 86

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- 91

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- 100

ACSI 79 85 -- 87

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 85 90 -- 92

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 76 84 -- 84

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 75 81 -- 85

Trust -- -- -- 94

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 94
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 193

2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 38 41 0 42

College Assistance Migrant Program

Accessibility and responsiveness of program staff 91 90 -- 90

Timely resolution of questions by program staff 86 89 -- 87

Clarity of information provided by program staff 87 89 -- 91

Usefulness and relevance of the strategies for technical 

assistance 87 90 -- 92

Usefulness of updated technical assistance resources 

pages on CAMP.ed.gov -- 85 -- 88
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 194

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 64% 27

Agree 0% 0 26% 11

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 5% 2

Does not apply 0% 0 5% 2

Number of Respondents 0 42

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 83% 35

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 10% 4

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 7% 3

Number of Respondents 0 42

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 10% 4

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 21% 9

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 48% 20

More than 10 years 0% 0 21% 9

Number of Respondents 0 42

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 7% 3

Did not receive 0% 0 93% 39

Number of Respondents 0 42

CAMP Cohort

2016 0% 0 33% 14

2017 0% 0 21% 9

2019 0% 0 21% 9

2020 0% 0 24% 10

Number of Respondents 0 42
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 195

Comprehensive Literacy State Development

Score Table

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 5 5 5 0 11 10 14

ED Staff/Coordination 73 59 75 -- 90 92 90

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 78 58 80 -- 89 92 92

Responsiveness to your questions 73 71 84 -- 91 91 82

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 95

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 81 56 76 -- 85 91 90

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 75 48 61 -- 89 92 --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 63 30 59 -- 88 86 91

Online Resources 59 29 66 -- 86 83 80

Ease of finding materials online 61 31 63 -- 84 82 80

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 49 31 63 -- 84 82 79

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Ease of navigation 60 31 64 -- 91 82 79

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Documents 57 42 75 -- 88 89 91

Clarity 47 38 78 -- 87 88 90

Organization of information 56 40 75 -- 87 90 92

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 64 40 75 -- 87 89 92

Relevance to your areas of need 62 51 72 -- 90 89 92

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 56 40 75 -- 89 89 92

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

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

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

ACSI 45 45 66 -- 82 86 79

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 60 60 71 -- 85 91 85

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 33 38 64 -- 82 82 75

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 40 36 62 -- 79 83 75

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 91 87

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 91 87
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 196

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 5 5 5 0 11 10 14

Comprehensive Literacy State Development

Responsiveness to questions -- -- -- -- 94 91 84

Timely resolution of general programmatic and financial 

issues -- -- -- -- 89 87 83

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- 91 89 89

Quality of information or feedback received from SRCL 

program officer -- -- -- -- 92 93 87

Frequency of communication -- 67 87 -- 82 89 87

Service provided by the program officer -- -- -- -- 92 93 85

Face-to-face SRCL Program Director`s National 

Convening -- -- -- -- 96 90 93
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 197

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 70% 7 50% 7

Agree 30% 3 50% 7

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 10 14

Job role

Project/State Director 80% 8 93% 13

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 20% 2 7% 1

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 10 14

Length of time in role

Less than one year 10% 1 14% 2

Between 1 - 3 years 50% 5 50% 7

Between 4 - 10 years 30% 3 29% 4

More than 10 years 10% 1 7% 1

Number of Respondents 10 14

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 57% 8

Did not receive 0% 0 43% 6

Number of Respondents 0 14

SF Cohort

CLSD 0% 0 21% 3

SRCL 0% 0 79% 11

Number of Respondents 0 14
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 198

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children Special Projects for Indian Children

Score Table

2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 30 32 39 52

ED Staff/Coordination 75 77 68 85

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 81 84 71 89

Responsiveness to your questions 72 78 67 78

Professionalism -- -- -- 90

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 77 80 75 85

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- 80

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 84 73 64 --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 79 67 72 81

Online Resources 68 62 59 70

Ease of finding materials online 70 63 58 70

Quality of content -- -- -- 71

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 70 62 58 66

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- 69

Ease of navigation 66 58 59 70

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- 72

Documents 69 68 68 78

Clarity 70 68 69 78

Organization of information 69 71 69 80

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 68 71 68 78

Relevance to your areas of need 69 69 70 79

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 70 62 66 76

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- 70

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- 73

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- 72

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- 66

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- 72

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- 75

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- 62

Technical Assistance -- -- -- 75

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- 79

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- 72

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- 71

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- 70

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- 82

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- 76

ACSI 68 70 61 77

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 71 76 67 83

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 68 68 57 75

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 64 65 57 71

Trust -- -- 68 84

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- 68 84
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 199

2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 30 32 39 52

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special 

Projects for Indian Children

Usefulness and relevance of webinar-based technical 

assistance 74 67 75 80

Usefulness and relevance of project director meeting 

technical assistance 73 78 74 84

Usefulness and relevance of technical assistance 

resources on the OIE web site 68 67 67 72
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 200

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 13% 5 37% 19

Agree 72% 28 50% 26

Disagree 10% 4 12% 6

Strongly disagree 5% 2 2% 1

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 39 52

Job role

Project/State Director 64% 25 54% 28

School Officer 5% 2 4% 2

Grant Coordinator 26% 10 31% 16

Superintendent 0% 0 2% 1

Business Manager 3% 1 0% 0

Other 3% 1 10% 5

Number of Respondents 39 52

Length of time in role

Less than one year 15% 6 4% 2

Between 1 - 3 years 36% 14 40% 21

Between 4 - 10 years 28% 11 40% 21

More than 10 years 21% 8 15% 8

Number of Respondents 39 52

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 23% 12

Did not receive 0% 0 77% 40

Number of Respondents 0 52

TA Priority Ranking-Data Collection - IELEA

1st 15% 6 15% 8

2nd 10% 4 15% 8

3rd 23% 9 13% 7

4th 13% 5 15% 8

5th 13% 5 8% 4

6th 13% 5 12% 6

7th 10% 4 17% 9

8th 3% 1 4% 2

Number of Respondents 39 52
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 201

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

TA Priority Ranking-Performance Reporting - IELEA

1st 21% 8 23% 12

2nd 31% 12 21% 11

3rd 3% 1 8% 4

4th 3% 1 12% 6

5th 3% 1 4% 2

6th 15% 6 6% 3

7th 10% 4 15% 8

8th 15% 6 12% 6

Number of Respondents 39 52

TA Priority Ranking-Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act -

IELEA

1st 15% 6 10% 5

2nd 8% 3 6% 3

3rd 3% 1 8% 4

4th 5% 2 6% 3

5th 3% 1 4% 2

6th 10% 4 8% 4

7th 10% 4 10% 5

8th 46% 18 50% 26

Number of Respondents 39 52

TA Priority Ranking-Capacity Building - IELEA

1st 10% 4 17% 9

2nd 13% 5 13% 7

3rd 8% 3 10% 5

4th 21% 8 10% 5

5th 5% 2 15% 8

6th 18% 7 17% 9

7th 15% 6 12% 6

8th 10% 4 6% 3

Number of Respondents 39 52

TA Priority Ranking-Parent Engagement - IELEA

1st 10% 4 8% 4

2nd 8% 3 8% 4

3rd 8% 3 27% 14

4th 18% 7 12% 6

5th 26% 10 15% 8

6th 15% 6 13% 7

7th 13% 5 13% 7

8th 3% 1 4% 2

Number of Respondents 39 52
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report 

Grantee Satisfaction Survey 

2020 202

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency 

TA Priority Ranking-Partnerships - IELEA 

1st 3% 1 6% 3 

2nd 3% 1 15% 8 

3rd 28% 11 6% 3 

4th 5% 2 15% 8 

5th 31% 12 17% 9 

6th 10% 4 19% 10

7th 13% 5 12% 6 

8th 8% 3 10% 5 

Number of Respondents 39 52

TA Priority Ranking-Cultural Relevance - IELEA 

1st 8% 3 6% 3 

2nd 15% 6 10% 5 

3rd 13% 5 17% 9 

4th 18% 7 19% 10

5th 21% 8 17% 9 

6th 5% 2 12% 6 

7th 15% 6 12% 6 

8th 5% 2 8% 4 

Number of Respondents 39 52

TA Priority Ranking-Allowable Costs and Budgeting Flexibilities - 

IELEA 

1st 18% 7 15% 8 

2nd 13% 5 12% 6 

3rd 15% 6 12% 6 

4th 18% 7 12% 6 

5th 0% 0 19% 10

6th 13% 5 13% 7 

7th 13% 5 10% 5 

8th 10% 4 8% 4 

Number of Respondents 39 52
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 203

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 111 102 109 116 110

ED Staff/Coordination 85 91 87 84 88

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 90 92 91 85 92

Responsiveness to your questions 81 89 85 82 84

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 92

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 84 93 91 84 87

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 88

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 83 90 87 83 89

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 81 90 92 82 87

Online Resources 75 79 70 71 76

Ease of finding materials online 72 77 71 69 75

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 77

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 75 79 72 71 76

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 78

Ease of navigation 72 76 71 71 76

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 72

Information in Application Package 87 89 81 88 90

Program Purpose 88 90 80 88 88

Program Priorities 87 88 80 89 90

Selection Criteria 84 88 80 85 89

Review Process 82 86 77 85 85

Budget Information and Forms 85 87 77 83 86

Deadline for Submission 91 91 85 91 93

Dollar Limit on Awards 89 90 84 91 91

Page Limitation Instructions 89 91 84 90 89

Formatting Instructions 86 88 82 88 88

Program Contact 88 92 85 89 94

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 76

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 78

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 73

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- 86

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- 76

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 79

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 63

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 84

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 84

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 73 78 72 79 78

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 79 84 78 84 85

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 71 76 70 77 76

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 69 74 66 75 73

Trust -- -- -- 86 88

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 86 88
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 204

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 111 102 109 116 110

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions

Responsiveness to questions 80 88 82 84 82

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures 87 92 88 85 90

Ability to resolve issues 87 91 87 85 86

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication 87 90 85 85 85

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues 83 90 85 84 85

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- 79

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- 83

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- 88

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- 83

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- 78

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- 83
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 205

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 41% 47 52% 57

Agree 49% 57 40% 44

Disagree 6% 7 5% 6

Strongly disagree 2% 2 2% 2

Does not apply 3% 3 1% 1

Number of Respondents 116 110

Job role

Project/State Director 73% 85 83% 91

School Officer 2% 2 1% 1

Grant Coordinator 22% 26 14% 15

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 3% 3 3% 3

Number of Respondents 116 110

Length of time in role

Less than one year 17% 20 15% 17

Between 1 - 3 years 35% 41 38% 42

Between 4 - 10 years 34% 40 31% 34

More than 10 years 13% 15 15% 17

Number of Respondents 116 110

Preferred method of communication - DHSI

Individual Email 0% 0 82% 90

Blast/Distribution list email 0% 0 7% 8

Telephone 0% 0 5% 5

Webinar 0% 0 5% 5

Other 0% 0 2% 2

Number of Respondents 0 110
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 206

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA)

Score Table

2020

Sample Size 15

ED Staff/Coordination 85

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 97

Responsiveness to your questions 67

Professionalism 90

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 79

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

85

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 80

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 87

Online Resources 67

Ease of finding materials online 70

Quality of content 64

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 69

Accuracy of search results 70

Ease of navigation 74

Look and feel/Visual appearance 60

Information in Application Package 87

Program Purpose 93

Program Priorities 93

Selection Criteria 90

Review Process 84

Budget Information and Forms 82

Deadline for Submission 92

Dollar Limit on Awards 79

Page Limitation Instructions 83

Formatting Instructions 81

Program Contact 93

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements 66

Clarity of reporting requirements 70

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report 69

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically 75

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) 60

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project 56

Your understanding of how ED uses your data 59

Technical Assistance 75

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects 75

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project --

ACSI 71

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 80

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 67

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 65

Trust 79

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 79
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 207

2020

Sample Size 15

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA)

Responsiveness to your questions 72

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures 91

Ability to resolve issues 83

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication 76

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues 73

Timeliness of the grant award notification 57

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation 61

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees 73

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed 78

Frequency of communication 73

Clarity of communication 77

Supports instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding 98

Supports work in language aspects of professional and 

other fields of study 96

Supports research and training in international studies 99

Teaching of any modern foreign language 92

Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding 99

Research and training in international studies 97

Language aspects of professional and other fields of 

study 91

Instruction and research on issues in world affairs 94
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 208

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 40% 6

Agree 0% 0 47% 7

Disagree 0% 0 13% 2

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 15

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 80% 12

School Officer 0% 0 7% 1

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 13% 2

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 15

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 7% 1

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 20% 3

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 60% 9

More than 10 years 0% 0 13% 2

Number of Respondents 0 15

Preferred method of communication - DDRAF

Individual Email 0% 0 80% 12

Blast/Distribution list email 0% 0 7% 1

Telephone 0% 0 7% 1

Other 0% 0 7% 1

Number of Respondents 0 15
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 209

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program

Score Table

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 19 37 35 36 32 29 29

ED Staff/Coordination 89 91 86 93 88 87 93

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 92 95 91 97 90 90 94

Responsiveness to your questions 88 91 84 93 87 84 93

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 88 90 81 87 86 88 92

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 84 86 91 95 88 88 --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 89 86 91 93 85 84 92

Online Resources 76 70 68 76 83 69 80

Ease of finding materials online 74 68 65 79 85 72 80

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 77 71 66 83 83 69 79

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Ease of navigation 74 69 66 74 80 65 81

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Documents 83 86 81 89 83 88 86

Clarity 78 86 80 91 83 89 91

Organization of information 83 88 84 93 83 90 91

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 83 84 77 86 81 87 89

Relevance to your areas of need 87 89 84 93 87 89 86

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 82 85 80 86 81 83 88

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

ACSI 77 78 73 83 80 79 85

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 81 83 76 88 85 84 89

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 78 74 71 82 76 76 83

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 73 76 71 79 77 76 82

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 80 92

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 80 92
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 210

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 19 37 35 36 32 29 29

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program

Responsiveness in answering questions - Tech 

Assistance Center (NCHE) 96 96 95 100 98 91 94

Guidance provided in responses to questions - Tech 

Assistance Center (NCHE) -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Meeting program compliance requirements - US 

Department of Education 90 87 84 92 88 88 87

Assisting you to impact performance results - US 

Department of Education 85 81 81 84 82 81 85

Support quality for collecting/submitting data - U.S. 

Department of Education -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Meeting program compliance requirements - Tech 

Assistance Center (NCHE) 96 97 93 98 93 89 92

Assisting you to impact performance results - Tech 

Assistance Center (NCHE) 95 96 91 94 89 85 90

Support quality for collecting/submitting data - Tech 

Assistance Center (NCHE) -- -- -- -- -- -- 92
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 211

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 38% 11 72% 21

Agree 59% 17 21% 6

Disagree 3% 1 3% 1

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 3% 1

Number of Respondents 29 29

Job role

Project/State Director 79% 23 76% 22

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 14% 4 10% 3

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 3% 1 0% 0

Other 3% 1 14% 4

Number of Respondents 29 29

Length of time in role

Less than one year 7% 2 10% 3

Between 1 - 3 years 24% 7 34% 10

Between 4 - 10 years 41% 12 31% 9

More than 10 years 28% 8 24% 7

Number of Respondents 29 29

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 69% 20

Did not receive 0% 0 31% 9

Number of Respondents 0 29
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 212

Education Innovation and Research Programs

Score Table

2019 2020

Sample Size 40 44

ED Staff/Coordination 84 84

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 84 82

Responsiveness to your questions 83 82

Professionalism -- 93

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 82 83

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- 87

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 81 --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 85 80

Online Resources 69 71

Ease of finding materials online 69 70

Quality of content -- 71

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 68 71

Accuracy of search results -- 73

Ease of navigation 69 71

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- 71

Documents 74 72

Clarity 76 74

Organization of information 75 75

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 77 71

Relevance to your areas of need 72 70

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 69 70

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- 74

Clarity of reporting requirements -- 74

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- 73

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- 77

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- 80

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- 75

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- 63

Technical Assistance -- 75

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- 82

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- 73

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- 78

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- 71

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- 69

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- 85

ACSI 75 74

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 80 81

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 74 70

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 70 69

Trust 81 84

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 81 84

Education Innovation and Research Programs

Assistance in improving your evaluation planning and 

implementation -- 86

Providing relevant information and ideas -- 86

Connecting with other experts or practitioners working on 

similar evaluations -- 74

Implementing a meaningful, rigorous evaluation -- 64

Gaining helpful tech assistance to conduct a meaningful, 

rigorous evaluation -- 80

Dissemination of resources and opportunities provided 

by i3/EIR -- 71

Communication/information is accessible and provided in 

timely/responsive manner -- 76
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 213

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 38% 15 39% 17

Agree 53% 21 57% 25

Disagree 8% 3 2% 1

Strongly disagree 0% 0 2% 1

Does not apply 3% 1 0% 0

Number of Respondents 40 44

Job role

Project/State Director 78% 31 89% 39

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 23% 9 9% 4

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 2% 1

Number of Respondents 40 44

Length of time in role

Less than one year 3% 1 25% 11

Between 1 - 3 years 35% 14 32% 14

Between 4 - 10 years 45% 18 27% 12

More than 10 years 18% 7 16% 7

Number of Respondents 40 44

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 20% 9

Did not receive 0% 0 80% 35

Number of Respondents 0 44

EIR Cohort

Early-phase 74% 23 55% 24

Mid-phase 23% 7 25% 11

Expansion 3% 1 9% 4

Development 0% 0 5% 2

Scale Up 0% 0 2% 1

Validation 0% 0 5% 2

Number of Respondents 31 44
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 214

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

Score Table

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 38 22 30 20 24 21 26

ED Staff/Coordination 82 67 71 76 84 74 79

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 88 73 72 85 85 73 82

Responsiveness to your questions 85 68 70 70 83 73 71

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 82 70 70 79 86 75 75

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 75 64 71 71 82 71 --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 74 59 65 74 85 68 73

Online Resources 64 55 63 60 68 61 70

Ease of finding materials online 60 56 64 59 67 62 69

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 65 54 62 59 66 59 71

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 68

Ease of navigation 62 52 59 60 66 60 68

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Documents 69 69 72 62 69 72 76

Clarity 69 72 74 63 69 75 78

Organization of information 72 70 75 68 71 75 79

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 67 66 69 55 68 71 72

Relevance to your areas of need 72 69 74 65 72 75 79

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 65 66 67 57 66 64 68

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 65

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 65

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 65

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 65

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 56

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 66

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- 66

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- 64

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- 56

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- 57

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

ACSI 61 56 55 57 68 61 63

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 67 60 61 61 73 67 69

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 59 52 50 54 66 61 59

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 57 55 52 54 63 53 60

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 63 69

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 63 69

English Language Acquisition State Grants (Title III, 

Part A)

Provides assistance that enhances capacity to 

implement -- -- -- 74 76 62 65

Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs 

to implement -- -- -- 65 70 64 62

Helps address implementation challenges -- -- 59 66 73 63 63

Provides information about key changes to requirements -- -- -- 72 77 73 75
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 215

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 10% 2 12% 3

Agree 57% 12 69% 18

Disagree 19% 4 15% 4

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 14% 3 4% 1

Number of Respondents 21 26

Job role

Project/State Director 90% 19 81% 21

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 8% 2

Superintendent 5% 1 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 5% 1 12% 3

Number of Respondents 21 26

Length of time in role

Less than one year 5% 1 8% 2

Between 1 - 3 years 29% 6 50% 13

Between 4 - 10 years 48% 10 27% 7

More than 10 years 19% 4 15% 4

Number of Respondents 21 26

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 31% 8

Did not receive 0% 0 69% 18

Number of Respondents 0 26
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 216

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships Program

Score Table

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 81 0 0 0 92

ED Staff/Coordination 85 -- -- -- 96

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 86 -- -- -- 98

Responsiveness to your questions 85 -- -- -- 97

Professionalism -- -- -- -- 98

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 82 -- -- -- 96

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- 94

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 82 -- -- -- 93

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 89 -- -- -- 94

Online Resources 66 -- -- -- 72

Ease of finding materials online 65 -- -- -- 74

Quality of content -- -- -- -- 75

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 66 -- -- -- 73

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- 74

Ease of navigation 66 -- -- -- 71

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- 66

Information in Application Package 86 -- -- -- 86

Program Purpose 87 -- -- -- 86

Program Priorities 86 -- -- -- 86

Selection Criteria 84 -- -- -- 85

Review Process 81 -- -- -- 78

Budget Information and Forms 84 -- -- -- 80

Deadline for Submission 87 -- -- -- 91

Dollar Limit on Awards 85 -- -- -- 87

Page Limitation Instructions 87 -- -- -- 87

Formatting Instructions 87 -- -- -- 83

Program Contact 89 -- -- -- 92

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- 71

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- 80

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- 63

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

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

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- 68

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- 58

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- 92

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- 92

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 71 -- -- -- 83

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 78 -- -- -- 89

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 68 -- -- -- 80

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 64 -- -- -- 78

Trust -- -- -- -- 91

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 91
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 217

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 81 0 0 0 92

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships 

program

Responsiveness to your questions 84 -- -- -- 95

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures 85 -- -- -- 95

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- 95

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- 95

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- 95

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- 72

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- 73

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- 84

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- 92

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- 89

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- 92

Supports instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding -- -- -- -- 94

Supports work in language aspects of professional and 

other fields of study -- -- -- -- 94

Supports research and training in international studies -- -- -- -- 95

Teaching of any modern foreign language -- -- -- -- 95

Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding -- -- -- -- 94

Research and training in international studies -- -- -- -- 93

Language aspects of professional and other fields of 

study -- -- -- -- 93

Instruction and research on issues in world affairs -- -- -- -- 93
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 218

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 52% 48

Agree 0% 0 47% 43

Disagree 0% 0 1% 1

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 92

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 33% 30

School Officer 0% 0 3% 3

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 47% 43

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 7% 6

Other 0% 0 11% 10

Number of Respondents 0 92

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 7% 6

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 33% 30

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 29% 27

More than 10 years 0% 0 32% 29

Number of Respondents 0 92

Preferred method of communication - FLAS

Individual Email 0% 0 88% 81

Blast/Distribution list email 0% 0 4% 4

Telephone 0% 0 3% 3

Webinar 0% 0 3% 3

Other 0% 0 1% 1

Number of Respondents 0 92
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 219

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

Score Table

2020

Sample Size 18

ED Staff/Coordination 87

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 93

Responsiveness to your questions 85

Professionalism 92

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 81

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

86

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 87

Online Resources 78

Ease of finding materials online 78

Quality of content 81

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 80

Accuracy of search results 80

Ease of navigation 79

Look and feel/Visual appearance 76

Documents 85

Clarity 85

Organization of information 84

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 82

Relevance to your areas of need 90

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 89

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements 71

Clarity of reporting requirements 70

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report 70

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically 60

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) 77

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project 77

Your understanding of how ED uses your data 70

Technical Assistance 78

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects 83

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management 80

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities 80

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program 76

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups 73

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project 78

ACSI 79

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 85

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 77

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 73

Trust 85

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 85

Full-service community schools (ESEA IV-F-2, 

section 4625) program

ED Program Contacts quality of assistance 100
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 220

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 50% 9

Agree 0% 0 33% 6

Disagree 0% 0 6% 1

Strongly disagree 0% 0 6% 1

Does not apply 0% 0 6% 1

Number of Respondents 0 18

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 72% 13

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 11% 2

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 17% 3

Number of Respondents 0 18

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 11% 2

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 56% 10

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 22% 4

More than 10 years 0% 0 11% 2

Number of Respondents 0 18

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 17% 3

Did not receive 0% 0 83% 15

Number of Respondents 0 18

Asked for assistance not related to fiscal or grant 

administration issues - FSCS

Asked for assistance 0% 0 39% 7

Did not ask 0% 0 61% 11

Number of Respondents 0 18
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 221

GEAR UP - Partnerships

Score Table

2020

Sample Size 44

ED Staff/Coordination 89

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 92

Responsiveness to your questions 85

Professionalism 93

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 88

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

85

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 86

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 90

Online Resources 72

Ease of finding materials online 71

Quality of content 75

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 73

Accuracy of search results 75

Ease of navigation 72

Look and feel/Visual appearance 65

Information in Application Package 89

Program Purpose 90

Program Priorities 89

Selection Criteria 87

Review Process 85

Budget Information and Forms 87

Deadline for Submission 91

Dollar Limit on Awards 89

Page Limitation Instructions 89

Formatting Instructions 87

Program Contact 90

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements 73

Clarity of reporting requirements 74

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report 71

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically 81

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) 74

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project 74

Your understanding of how ED uses your data 67

Technical Assistance 79

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects 79

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project --

ACSI 79

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 85

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 77

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 76

Trust 86

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 86
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 222

2020

Sample Size 44

GEAR UP - Partnerships

Responsiveness to your questions 81

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures 86

Ability to resolve issues 85

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication 84

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues 84

Timeliness of the grant award notification 76

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation 82

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees 84

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed 82

Frequency of communication 75

Clarity of communication 81
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 223

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 41% 18

Agree 0% 0 55% 24

Disagree 0% 0 2% 1

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 2% 1

Number of Respondents 0 44

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 98% 43

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 2% 1

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 44

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 7% 3

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 57% 25

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 23% 10

More than 10 years 0% 0 14% 6

Number of Respondents 0 44

Preferred method of communication - GEARPART

Individual Email 0% 0 86% 38

Blast/Distribution list email 0% 0 2% 1

Telephone 0% 0 5% 2

Webinar 0% 0 5% 2

Other 0% 0 2% 1

Number of Respondents 0 44
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 224

GEAR UP - State

Score Table

2020

Sample Size 16

ED Staff/Coordination 80

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 77

Responsiveness to your questions 77

Professionalism 94

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 79

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

79

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 65

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 68

Online Resources 60

Ease of finding materials online 61

Quality of content 61

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 60

Accuracy of search results 62

Ease of navigation 59

Look and feel/Visual appearance 56

Information in Application Package 78

Program Purpose 91

Program Priorities 81

Selection Criteria 82

Review Process 80

Budget Information and Forms 80

Deadline for Submission 79

Dollar Limit on Awards 77

Page Limitation Instructions 66

Formatting Instructions 64

Program Contact 79

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements 52

Clarity of reporting requirements 50

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report 47

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically 67

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) 55

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project 59

Your understanding of how ED uses your data 36

Technical Assistance 60

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects 60

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups

--

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project --

ACSI 64

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 70

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 60

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 62

Trust 74

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 74
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 225

2020

Sample Size 16

GEAR UP - State

Responsiveness to your questions 76

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures 69

Ability to resolve issues 69

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication 71

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues 68

Timeliness of the grant award notification 58

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation 64

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees 54

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed 66

Frequency of communication 63

Clarity of communication 68
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 226

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 13% 2

Agree 0% 0 56% 9

Disagree 0% 0 25% 4

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 6% 1

Number of Respondents 0 16

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 100% 16

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 0% 0

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 16

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 6% 1

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 6% 1

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 50% 8

More than 10 years 0% 0 38% 6

Number of Respondents 0 16

Preferred method of communication - GEARSTATE

Individual Email 0% 0 75% 12

Telephone 0% 0 6% 1

Webinar 0% 0 13% 2

Other 0% 0 6% 1

Number of Respondents 0 16
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 227

Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need Program

Score Table

2020

Sample Size 52

ED Staff/Coordination 95

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 96

Responsiveness to your questions 95

Professionalism 96

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 94

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

94

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 97

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 97

Online Resources 81

Ease of finding materials online 81

Quality of content 81

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 82

Accuracy of search results 81

Ease of navigation 80

Look and feel/Visual appearance 78

Information in Application Package 91

Program Purpose 91

Program Priorities 89

Selection Criteria 88

Review Process 89

Budget Information and Forms 86

Deadline for Submission 94

Dollar Limit on Awards 90

Page Limitation Instructions 94

Formatting Instructions 89

Program Contact 95

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements 83

Clarity of reporting requirements 86

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report 79

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically 92

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) 85

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project 81

Your understanding of how ED uses your data 75

Technical Assistance 91

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects 91

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups

--

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project --

ACSI 86

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 94

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 82

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 80

Trust 95

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 95
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 228

2020

Sample Size 52

Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need 

Program

Responsiveness to your questions 96

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures 96

Ability to resolve issues 93

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication 93

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues 95

Timeliness of the grant award notification 87

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation 73

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees 91

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed 91

Frequency of communication 91

Clarity of communication 93
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 229

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 81% 42

Agree 0% 0 19% 10

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 52

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 87% 45

School Officer 0% 0 2% 1

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 6% 3

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 6% 3

Number of Respondents 0 52

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 10% 5

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 42% 22

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 15% 8

More than 10 years 0% 0 33% 17

Number of Respondents 0 52

Preferred method of communication - GAANN

Individual Email 0% 0 94% 49

Blast/Distribution list email 0% 0 2% 1

Telephone 0% 0 2% 1

Other 0% 0 2% 1

Number of Respondents 0 52
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 230

Grants for State Assessments

Score Table

2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 17 32 32 29

ED Staff/Coordination 73 82 84 92

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 75 84 87 94

Responsiveness to your questions 70 86 82 94

Professionalism -- -- -- 96

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 71 82 83 90

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- 88

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 69 81 72 --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 70 78 77 87

Online Resources 64 70 74 76

Ease of finding materials online 61 63 74 76

Quality of content -- -- -- 80

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 64 67 73 75

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- 74

Ease of navigation 63 66 70 71

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- 74

Documents 69 76 80 84

Clarity 71 76 79 84

Organization of information 69 79 81 85

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 66 73 80 83

Relevance to your areas of need 71 77 82 86

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 66 71 80 81

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- 81

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- 83

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- 80

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- 85

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- 86

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- 79

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- 73

Technical Assistance -- -- -- 83

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- 87

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- 84

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- 85

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- 81

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- 81

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- 83

ACSI 63 66 75 76

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 68 74 80 83

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 61 62 72 73

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 58 60 70 70

Trust -- -- 78 86

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- 78 86

Grants for State Assessments

Provides assistance that enhances capacity to 

implement 68 69 77 79

Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs 

to implement 67 69 80 84

Helps address implementation challenges 60 66 75 83

Provides information about key changes to requirements 71 72 82 83
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 231

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 34% 11 59% 17

Agree 59% 19 38% 11

Disagree 3% 1 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 3% 1 3% 1

Number of Respondents 32 29

Job role

Project/State Director 91% 29 100% 29

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 3% 1 0% 0

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 6% 2 0% 0

Number of Respondents 32 29

Length of time in role

Less than one year 13% 4 17% 5

Between 1 - 3 years 31% 10 38% 11

Between 4 - 10 years 47% 15 38% 11

More than 10 years 9% 3 7% 2

Number of Respondents 32 29

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 17% 5

Did not receive 0% 0 83% 24

Number of Respondents 0 29
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 232

Group Projects Abroad Program

Score Table

2020

Sample Size 21

ED Staff/Coordination 95

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 96

Responsiveness to your questions 93

Professionalism 98

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 92

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

93

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 95

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 98

Online Resources 79

Ease of finding materials online 79

Quality of content 81

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 78

Accuracy of search results 79

Ease of navigation 79

Look and feel/Visual appearance 77

Information in Application Package 91

Program Purpose 91

Program Priorities 91

Selection Criteria 89

Review Process 88

Budget Information and Forms 82

Deadline for Submission 96

Dollar Limit on Awards 93

Page Limitation Instructions 93

Formatting Instructions 88

Program Contact 96

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements 81

Clarity of reporting requirements 81

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report 81

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically 85

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) 84

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project 82

Your understanding of how ED uses your data 70

Technical Assistance 91

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects 91

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project --

ACSI 86

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 89

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 85

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 84

Trust 96

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 96
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 233

2020

Sample Size 21

Group Projects Abroad program

Responsiveness to your questions 91

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures 93

Ability to resolve issues 94

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication 92

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues 92

Timeliness of the grant award notification 92

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation 95

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees 90

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed 92

Frequency of communication 87

Clarity of communication 90

Supports instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding 92

Supports work in language aspects of professional and 

other fields of study 84

Supports research and training in international studies 92

Teaching of any modern foreign language 92

Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding 96

Research and training in international studies 92

Language aspects of professional and other fields of 

study 93
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 234

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 81% 17

Agree 0% 0 19% 4

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 21

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 67% 14

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 14% 3

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 5% 1

Other 0% 0 14% 3

Number of Respondents 0 21

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 0% 0

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 33% 7

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 19% 4

More than 10 years 0% 0 48% 10

Number of Respondents 0 21

Preferred method of communication - GPA

Individual Email 0% 0 86% 18

Telephone 0% 0 5% 1

Other 0% 0 10% 2

Number of Respondents 0 21
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 235

High School Equivalency Program – Migrant Education

Score Table

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 35 25 25 34 37 0 39

ED Staff/Coordination 87 93 91 89 92 -- 93

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 89 96 90 90 92 -- 94

Responsiveness to your questions 85 94 89 89 93 -- 87

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 97

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 87 92 90 89 93 -- 92

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 86 92 94 87 91 -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 89 89 93 92 89 -- 91

Online Resources 86 85 83 80 77 -- 83

Ease of finding materials online 83 84 80 79 71 -- 84

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 87 85 84 81 74 -- 83

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Ease of navigation 87 85 83 79 77 -- 80

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Documents 89 89 85 84 84 -- 90

Clarity 89 89 86 84 83 -- 91

Organization of information 90 90 85 86 82 -- 91

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 90 88 86 84 85 -- 89

Relevance to your areas of need 90 91 85 86 85 -- 92

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 88 88 85 83 84 -- 87

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

ACSI 80 81 85 82 80 -- 88

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 85 85 88 86 84 -- 92

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 77 77 83 79 76 -- 86

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 76 78 84 79 77 -- 85

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

High School Equivalency Program - Migrant 

Education

Accessibility and responsiveness of program staff 89 94 93 86 90 -- 91

Timely resolution of questions by program staff 86 93 88 83 87 -- 88

Clarity of information provided by program staff 89 93 88 86 88 -- 89

Usefulness and relevance of technical assistance 

strategies 92 92 89 85 88 -- 91

Usefulness of updated technical assistance resources 

pages on HEP.ed.gov -- -- -- -- 86 -- 85
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 236

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 74% 29

Agree 0% 0 23% 9

Disagree 0% 0 3% 1

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 39

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 90% 35

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 10% 4

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 39

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 5% 2

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 26% 10

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 41% 16

More than 10 years 0% 0 28% 11

Number of Respondents 0 39

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 5% 2

Did not receive 0% 0 95% 37

Number of Respondents 0 39

HEP Cohort

2016 0% 0 36% 14

2017 0% 0 3% 1

2019 0% 0 36% 14

2020 0% 0 26% 10

Number of Respondents 0 39
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 237

IDEA-Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program

Score Table

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 23 22 34 36 31 36 22

ED Staff/Coordination 77 80 88 85 88 82 83

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 83 86 90 87 89 82 84

Responsiveness to your questions 76 82 87 83 88 82 79

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 74 79 87 82 86 81 78

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 67 77 -- -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 81 80 -- -- 89 79 85

Online Resources 57 67 68 68 69 66 66

Ease of finding materials online 51 62 63 62 68 65 63

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 57 65 69 65 69 64 67

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 63

Ease of navigation 51 66 63 64 64 65 62

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 62

Documents 66 74 71 76 75 78 73

Clarity 66 71 74 77 76 79 74

Organization of information 68 75 74 77 76 80 77

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 64 74 72 73 77 77 70

Relevance to your areas of need 72 78 70 79 76 78 77

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 61 70 66 75 72 74 65

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

ACSI 55 63 71 69 72 69 74

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 62 75 78 76 80 77 79

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 53 58 69 66 70 64 72

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 48 55 65 62 65 64 69

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 77 79

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 77 79
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 238

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 23 22 34 36 31 36 22

IDEA – Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities 

Program

Clarity of information received in developing applications 

and reports 73 -- -- 82 81 74 84

Timeliness of responses 82 -- -- 89 86 79 86

OSEP-funded TA provider -- -- -- 88 90 88 87

Education Department-funded TA provider -- -- -- 57 44 46 51

Professional associations -- -- -- 79 80 81 80

Conferences where research is presented -- -- -- 71 70 70 74

Books -- -- -- 59 48 55 49

Journal articles -- -- -- 63 59 60 60

Personal interaction with peers -- -- -- 82 79 80 87

IDEAS that work website -- -- -- -- 59 60 58

The Department`s new IDEA website -- -- -- -- 59 56 59

osep.grads360.org -- -- -- -- 76 70 62
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 239

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 25% 9 36% 8

Agree 61% 22 59% 13

Disagree 11% 4 5% 1

Strongly disagree 3% 1 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 36 22

Job role

Project/State Director 83% 30 64% 14

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 8% 3 18% 4

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 8% 3 18% 4

Number of Respondents 36 22

Length of time in role

Less than one year 11% 4 0% 0

Between 1 - 3 years 31% 11 27% 6

Between 4 - 10 years 33% 12 45% 10

More than 10 years 25% 9 27% 6

Number of Respondents 36 22

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 77% 17

Did not receive 0% 0 23% 5

Number of Respondents 0 22

Frequency of technical assistance and support from State lead -

IDEA-Part C

At least weekly 3% 1 0% 0

Monthly 47% 17 68% 15

Quarterly 33% 12 32% 7

Yearly 14% 5 0% 0

State Lead does not contact me 3% 1 0% 0

Number of Respondents 36 22

Helpfulness if automated grant submission and approval process 

- IDEA-Part C

Rated 0 - Not Helpful 0% 0 9% 2

Rated 1 3% 1 9% 2

Rated 3 0% 0 5% 1

Rated 4 19% 7 9% 2

Rated 5 - Very Helpful 72% 26 68% 15

Don ́t know/Not applicable 6% 2 0% 0

Number of Respondents 36 22
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 240

IDEA-State Directors of Special Education (Part B)

Score Table

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 16 17 38 32 32 30 23

ED Staff/Coordination 78 80 84 87 90 84 77

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 83 88 89 88 94 84 75

Responsiveness to your questions 72 79 83 85 89 85 80

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 79 76 79 84 89 83 73

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 75 77 -- -- -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 81 76 -- -- 90 81 69

Online Resources 53 63 65 66 73 64 64

Ease of finding materials online 44 58 59 62 71 63 63

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 53 63 63 65 72 63 65

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 64

Ease of navigation 47 58 60 62 72 63 61

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 64

Documents 73 68 75 75 78 76 74

Clarity 71 67 73 74 76 77 75

Organization of information 77 75 77 77 79 77 77

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 70 64 74 73 76 73 71

Relevance to your areas of need 81 71 80 79 82 79 79

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 67 64 71 70 77 74 70

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

ACSI 63 61 66 69 75 71 71

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 73 67 72 77 81 76 75

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 58 59 63 65 72 70 70

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 56 55 62 64 70 67 66

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 81 75

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 81 75
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 241

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 16 17 38 32 32 30 23

IDEA – State Directors of Special Education (Part B) 

Program

Clarity of information received in developing applications 

and reports 73 -- -- 77 82 75 74

Timeliness of responses 79 -- -- 81 86 79 79

OSEP-funded TA provider -- -- -- 82 88 85 89

Education Department-funded TA provider -- -- -- 57 57 62 68

Professional associations -- -- -- 81 83 81 80

Conferences where research is presented -- -- -- 75 75 74 68

Books -- -- -- 54 54 52 52

Journal articles -- -- -- 66 61 60 64

Personal interaction with peers -- -- -- 88 82 80 83

IDEAS that work website -- -- -- -- 73 61 68

The Department`s new IDEA website -- -- -- -- 74 60 65

osep.grads360.org -- -- -- -- 85 71 68
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 242

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 27% 8 35% 8

Agree 63% 19 61% 14

Disagree 7% 2 0% 0

Strongly disagree 3% 1 4% 1

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 30 23

Job role

Project/State Director 100% 30 91% 21

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 9% 2

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 30 23

Length of time in role

Less than one year 20% 6 9% 2

Between 1 - 3 years 33% 10 43% 10

Between 4 - 10 years 30% 9 26% 6

More than 10 years 17% 5 22% 5

Number of Respondents 30 23

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 74% 17

Did not receive 0% 0 26% 6

Number of Respondents 0 23

Frequency of technical assistance and support from State lead -

IDEA-Part B

At least weekly 3% 1 13% 3

Monthly 73% 22 52% 12

Quarterly 17% 5 26% 6

Yearly 3% 1 4% 1

State Lead does not contact me 3% 1 4% 1

Number of Respondents 30 23

Frequency of policy discussion with OSEP staff - - IDEA-Part B

At least weekly 7% 2 4% 1

Monthly 37% 11 43% 10

Quarterly 40% 12 22% 5

Yearly 10% 3 22% 5

Never 7% 2 9% 2

Number of Respondents 30 23
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 243

IDEA National Centers Program

Score Table

2020

Sample Size 11

ED Staff/Coordination 92

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 99

Responsiveness to your questions 92

Professionalism 96

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 96

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

92

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 92

Online Resources 75

Ease of finding materials online 75

Quality of content 80

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 80

Accuracy of search results 74

Ease of navigation 74

Look and feel/Visual appearance 73

Documents 81

Clarity 79

Organization of information 83

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 79

Relevance to your areas of need 85

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 78

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements 79

Clarity of reporting requirements 87

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report 81

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically 70

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) 89

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project 78

Your understanding of how ED uses your data 62

Technical Assistance 83

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects 90

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management 88

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities 81

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program 78

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups 83

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project 100

ACSI 78

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 84

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 78

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 71

Trust 87

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 87
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 244

2020

Sample Size 11

IDEA National Centers Program

Clarity of information received in developing applications 

and reports 100

Timeliness of responses 100

OSEP-funded TA provider 97

Education Department-funded TA provider 78

Professional associations 95

Conferences where research is presented 92

Books 73

Journal Articles 79

Personal interaction with peers 84

IDEAs that work website 62

The Department’s IDEA website 70

osep.grads360.org 50
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 245

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 64% 7

Agree 0% 0 36% 4

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 11

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 91% 10

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 0% 0

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 9% 1

Number of Respondents 0 11

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 0% 0

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 18% 2

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 36% 4

More than 10 years 0% 0 45% 5

Number of Respondents 0 11

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 9% 1

Did not receive 0% 0 91% 10

Number of Respondents 0 11

Frequency of tech assistance from State lead - IDEA - NAT

Monthly 0% 0 45% 5

State Lead does not contact me 0% 0 55% 6

Number of Respondents 0 11

Helpfulness if automated grant submission and approval process 

- IDEA - NAT

Rated 3 0% 0 64% 7

Rated 4 0% 0 27% 3

Rated 5 - Very Helpful 0% 0 9% 1

Number of Respondents 0 11
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 246

Immediate Aid to Restart School Operations

Score Table

2020

Sample Size 5

ED Staff/Coordination 93

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 93

Responsiveness to your questions 89

Professionalism 100

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 89

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

93

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 89

Online Resources 77

Ease of finding materials online 82

Quality of content 80

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 78

Accuracy of search results 72

Ease of navigation 73

Look and feel/Visual appearance 80

Documents 81

Clarity 80

Organization of information 82

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 82

Relevance to your areas of need 84

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 76

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements 76

Clarity of reporting requirements 73

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report 73

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically 91

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) 84

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project 69

Your understanding of how ED uses your data 62

Technical Assistance 84

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects 91

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management 84

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities 72

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program 87

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups 75

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project --

ACSI 81

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 87

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 82

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 73

Trust 91

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 91
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 247

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 60% 3

Agree 0% 0 40% 2

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 5

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 100% 5

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 0% 0

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 5

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 20% 1

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 40% 2

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 0% 0

More than 10 years 0% 0 40% 2

Number of Respondents 0 5

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 0% 0

Did not receive 0% 0 100% 5

Number of Respondents 0 5

RESTART Cohort

2018 0% 0 60% 3

2019 0% 0 40% 2

Number of Respondents 0 5

Areas would like tech assistance - RESTART

Use of funds 0% 0 60% 3

Subrecipient technical assistance or monitoring and oversight 0% 0 40% 2

Number of Respondents 0 5

Preferred method to receive information - RESTART

In-person during convenings or meetings 0% 0 20% 1

Written communication sent through a listserv 0% 0 60% 3

Webinars or virtual presentations 0% 0 20% 1

Number of Respondents 0 5
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 248

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies – Title I

Score Table

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 18 15 39 20 23 24 21

ED Staff/Coordination 83 86 70 77 75 75 79

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 84 88 69 78 74 78 81

Responsiveness to your questions 79 84 66 69 71 67 66

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 83 87 71 81 73 73 74

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 80 85 72 81 74 75 --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 82 81 70 81 74 72 79

Online Resources 62 66 65 68 54 55 61

Ease of finding materials online 56 60 59 65 48 51 63

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 68

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 59 67 64 67 50 55 59

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 58

Ease of navigation 57 59 63 66 53 54 59

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 60

Documents 71 83 69 78 64 69 79

Clarity 72 81 70 78 66 68 78

Organization of information 73 82 72 79 67 69 79

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 69 85 68 76 59 66 79

Relevance to your areas of need 72 85 70 79 65 75 81

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 68 81 65 78 61 65 77

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 63

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 67

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 61

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 64

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 60

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 54

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- 68

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- 64

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- 64

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- 63

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

ACSI 63 68 58 66 57 59 64

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 69 76 65 72 61 65 70

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 62 66 55 65 57 54 60

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 59 61 54 61 54 57 60

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 63 71

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 63 71

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local 

Educational Agencies Program

Provides assistance that enhances capacity to 

implement -- -- -- 63 71 69 68

Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs 

to implement -- -- -- 61 64 67 65

Helps address implementation challenges -- -- 54 67 60 65 66

Provides information about key changes to requirements -- -- -- 69 67 68 69
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 249

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 17% 4 5% 1

Agree 58% 14 86% 18

Disagree 13% 3 10% 2

Strongly disagree 13% 3 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 24 21

Job role

Project/State Director 100% 24 95% 20

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 0% 0

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 5% 1

Number of Respondents 24 21

Length of time in role

Less than one year 13% 3 14% 3

Between 1 - 3 years 38% 9 33% 7

Between 4 - 10 years 29% 7 33% 7

More than 10 years 21% 5 19% 4

Number of Respondents 24 21

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 48% 10

Did not receive 0% 0 52% 11

Number of Respondents 0 21
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 250

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies (LEAs)

Score Table

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 27 58 91 73 56 49 72

ED Staff/Coordination 88 87 87 87 85 86 86

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 87 87 87 87 85 87 88

Responsiveness to your questions 88 89 88 89 87 88 86

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 87 85 86 85 83 83 85

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 85 88 87 84 85 81 --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 90 89 85 85 83 80 83

Online Resources 85 81 82 83 79 71 79

Ease of finding materials online 80 78 77 82 74 68 78

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 86 83 83 84 80 71 81

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Ease of navigation 83 81 82 83 82 70 80

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Documents 83 82 83 81 78 78 81

Clarity 82 80 82 81 78 79 82

Organization of information 82 82 84 81 81 78 84

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 84 83 83 82 77 79 81

Relevance to your areas of need 85 83 84 82 79 78 81

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 83 80 83 82 76 78 79

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

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

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

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

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

ACSI 80 80 80 80 74 75 77

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 84 84 84 84 81 81 81

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 74 79 78 78 70 72 75

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 79 77 79 77 71 69 74

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 79 83

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 79 83

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education 

Agencies Program

Timeliness of staff -- -- 89 90 87 85 90

Quality of support -- -- 88 91 85 84 85

Comprehensiveness of documents -- -- 87 89 83 82 86

Ease of using EASIE system -- -- 89 89 82 84 84

Quality of training via webinars -- -- 86 87 80 81 81
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 251

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 39% 19 42% 30

Agree 51% 25 46% 33

Disagree 8% 4 10% 7

Strongly disagree 0% 0 1% 1

Does not apply 2% 1 1% 1

Number of Respondents 49 72

Job role

Project/State Director 8% 4 10% 7

School Officer 6% 3 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 53% 26 53% 38

Superintendent 14% 7 18% 13

Business Manager 4% 2 6% 4

Other 14% 7 14% 10

Number of Respondents 49 72

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 1% 1

Between 1 - 3 years 33% 16 21% 15

Between 4 - 10 years 35% 17 38% 27

More than 10 years 33% 16 40% 29

Number of Respondents 49 72

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 11% 8

Did not receive 0% 0 89% 64

Number of Respondents 0 72

OIE Cohort

BCG-I 7% 3 4% 3

LEA 74% 34 82% 59

LEA-C 7% 3 1% 1

T-M 4% 2 3% 2

T-S 9% 4 7% 5

BO-I 0% 0 3% 2

Number of Respondents 46 72
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 252

Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program

Score Table

2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 20 19 0 31

ED Staff/Coordination 97 97 -- 90

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 97 95 -- 91

Responsiveness to your questions 97 98 -- 86

Professionalism -- -- -- 95

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 99 97 -- 91

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- 89

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 97 95 -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 96 94 -- 85

Online Resources 86 89 -- 84

Ease of finding materials online 87 86 -- 82

Quality of content -- -- -- 87

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 88 91 -- 83

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- 84

Ease of navigation 83 89 -- 83

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- 83

Documents 86 91 -- 89

Clarity 86 90 -- 88

Organization of information 84 90 -- 88

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 87 91 -- 90

Relevance to your areas of need 87 91 -- 88

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 86 92 -- 88

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- 83

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- 84

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- 84

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

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- 84

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- 87

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- 78

Technical Assistance -- -- -- 88

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- 90

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- 89

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- 89

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- 91

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- 82

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- 100

ACSI 85 87 -- 88

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 93 92 -- 91

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 81 87 -- 86

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 81 82 -- 85

Trust -- -- -- 94

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 94

Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program

Responsiveness to questions 97 97 -- 86

Quality of information or feedback received from IAL 

program staff 96 95 -- 88

Overall satisfaction with service provided by the 

representative 98 97 -- 89

Helpfulness of project implementation and evaluation -- -- -- 86

Helpfulness of performance reporting -- -- -- 85
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 253

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 74% 23

Agree 0% 0 26% 8

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 31

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 58% 18

School Officer 0% 0 3% 1

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 23% 7

Superintendent 0% 0 6% 2

Business Manager 0% 0 3% 1

Other 0% 0 6% 2

Number of Respondents 0 31

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 6% 2

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 65% 20

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 19% 6

More than 10 years 0% 0 10% 3

Number of Respondents 0 31

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 6% 2

Did not receive 0% 0 94% 29

Number of Respondents 0 31
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 254

Javits Program

Score Table

2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 23 0 30

ED Staff/Coordination 78 -- 83

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 83 -- 82

Responsiveness to your questions 77 -- 81

Professionalism -- -- 87

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 92 -- 82

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- 83

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 84 -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 90 -- 84

Online Resources 72 -- 73

Ease of finding materials online 67 -- 72

Quality of content -- -- 71

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 73 -- 73

Accuracy of search results -- -- 77

Ease of navigation 75 -- 74

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- 76

Documents 78 -- 69

Clarity 75 -- 71

Organization of information 82 -- 73

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 78 -- 68

Relevance to your areas of need 81 -- 75

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 75 -- 68

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- 68

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- 73

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- 68

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- 66

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- 76

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- 67

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- 48

Technical Assistance -- -- 68

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- 76

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- 65

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- 68

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- 61

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- 56

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- 100

ACSI 72 -- 69

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 80 -- 75

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 70 -- 69

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 64 -- 62

Trust -- -- 80

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- 80

Javits Program

Timeliness and Responsiveness of general 

programmatic and financial issues 65 -- 75

Quality of information or feedback received from Javits 

program staff 62 -- 81

Knowledge and ability to assist with submission of 

interim performance report 72 -- 82

Overall satisfaction with service provided by the 

representative 63 -- 78

Frequency of communication 62 -- 73
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 255

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 33% 10

Agree 0% 0 43% 13

Disagree 0% 0 20% 6

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 3% 1

Number of Respondents 0 30

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 53% 16

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 20% 6

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 27% 8

Number of Respondents 0 30

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 3% 1

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 30% 9

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 33% 10

More than 10 years 0% 0 33% 10

Number of Respondents 0 30

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 3% 1

Did not receive 0% 0 97% 29

Number of Respondents 0 30
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 256

Language Resource Centers Program

Score Table

2020

Sample Size 7

ED Staff/Coordination 95

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 98

Responsiveness to your questions 100

Professionalism 100

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 100

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

87

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 92

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 87

Online Resources 89

Ease of finding materials online 90

Quality of content 90

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 94

Accuracy of search results 93

Ease of navigation 87

Look and feel/Visual appearance 79

Information in Application Package 93

Program Purpose 95

Program Priorities 95

Selection Criteria 95

Review Process 87

Budget Information and Forms 87

Deadline for Submission 97

Dollar Limit on Awards 97

Page Limitation Instructions 92

Formatting Instructions 84

Program Contact 97

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements 80

Clarity of reporting requirements 81

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report 81

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically 81

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) 90

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project 75

Your understanding of how ED uses your data 71

Technical Assistance 94

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects 94

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project --

ACSI 86

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 89

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 86

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 83

Trust 97

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 97
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 257

2020

Sample Size 7

Language Resource Centers program

Responsiveness to your questions 98

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures 100

Ability to resolve issues 100

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication 100

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues 100

Timeliness of the grant award notification 81

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation 78

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees 84

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed 94

Frequency of communication 94

Clarity of communication 95

Supports instruction in fields needed to provide full 

understanding 87

Supports work in language aspects of professional and 

other fields of study 87

Supports research and training in international studies 83

Teaching of any modern foreign language 95

Instruction in fields needed to provide full understanding 90

Research and training in international studies 84

Language aspects of professional and other fields of 

study 90

Instruction and research on issues in world affairs 75
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 258

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 86% 6

Agree 0% 0 14% 1

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 7

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 100% 7

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 0% 0

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 7

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 0% 0

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 14% 1

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 71% 5

More than 10 years 0% 0 14% 1

Number of Respondents 0 7

Preferred method of communication - LRC

Individual Email 0% 0 100% 7

Number of Respondents 0 7
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 259

Magnet Schools Assistance Program

Score Table

2019 2020

Sample Size 29 33

ED Staff/Coordination 84 87

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 84 87

Responsiveness to your questions 80 79

Professionalism -- 96

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 87 86

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- 88

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 80 --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 82 90

Online Resources 75 83

Ease of finding materials online 75 82

Quality of content -- 83

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 77 83

Accuracy of search results -- 83

Ease of navigation 75 81

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- 87

Documents 81 85

Clarity 79 87

Organization of information 82 89

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 81 84

Relevance to your areas of need 85 85

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 82 80

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- 84

Clarity of reporting requirements -- 87

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- 77

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- 89

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- 89

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- 81

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- 80

Technical Assistance -- 82

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- 85

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- 81

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- 81

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- 79

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- 80

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- 76

ACSI 79 79

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 83 82

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 78 77

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 77 76

Trust 83 86

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 83 86

Magnet Schools Assistance Program

Program Officer quality of assistance 94 83

Program Officer responsiveness 79 80

MSAP Center technical assistance support 85 86

GRADS 360 system 60 62

Overall effectiveness of assistance received from MSAP 82 83
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 260

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 45% 13 48% 16

Agree 41% 12 39% 13

Disagree 7% 2 12% 4

Strongly disagree 7% 2 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 29 33

Job role

Project/State Director 76% 22 76% 25

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 21% 6 15% 5

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 3% 1 9% 3

Number of Respondents 29 33

Length of time in role

Less than one year 7% 2 6% 2

Between 1 - 3 years 55% 16 52% 17

Between 4 - 10 years 34% 10 33% 11

More than 10 years 3% 1 9% 3

Number of Respondents 29 33

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 21% 7

Did not receive 0% 0 79% 26

Number of Respondents 0 33

MSAP Cohort

FY 2016 0% 0 15% 5

FY 2017 0% 0 73% 24

FY 2018 0% 0 12% 4

Number of Respondents 0 33

Asked for assistance in areas unrelated to fiscal or grant 

admin issues - MSA

Asked 14% 4 24% 8

Did not ask 86% 25 76% 25

Number of Respondents 29 33
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 261

Mental Health Demonstration Grants

Score Table

2020

Sample Size 19

ED Staff/Coordination 89

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 90

Responsiveness to your questions 84

Professionalism 96

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 86

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

88

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 91

Online Resources 80

Ease of finding materials online 78

Quality of content 84

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 80

Accuracy of search results 80

Ease of navigation 79

Look and feel/Visual appearance 82

Documents 83

Clarity 87

Organization of information 84

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 83

Relevance to your areas of need 83

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 80

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements 77

Clarity of reporting requirements 78

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report 75

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically 81

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) 83

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project 77

Your understanding of how ED uses your data 71

Technical Assistance 88

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects 88

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management 87

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities 88

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program

88

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups 90

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project 94

ACSI 78

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 82

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 75

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 77

Trust 85

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 85

Mental Health Demonstration Grants program

Responsiveness to questions about program 

requirements 84

Timeliness in returning phone calls and responding to 

emails 84

Effectiveness in providing technical assistance or 

guidance 85

Frequency of communicating 81

Technical assistance - relevance and usefulness 85

Technical assistance - frequency of communication 84

Use of technology to deliver services 84
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 262

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 58% 11

Agree 0% 0 37% 7

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 5% 1

Number of Respondents 0 19

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 63% 12

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 21% 4

Superintendent 0% 0 11% 2

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 5% 1

Number of Respondents 0 19

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 11% 2

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 63% 12

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 16% 3

More than 10 years 0% 0 11% 2

Number of Respondents 0 19

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 32% 6

Did not receive 0% 0 68% 13

Number of Respondents 0 19
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 263

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C)

Score Table

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 34 30 33 37 32 35 34

ED Staff/Coordination 83 80 82 87 92 86 85

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 85 86 86 91 93 88 92

Responsiveness to your questions 81 77 81 85 90 83 73

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 85 79 77 87 93 88 78

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 82 80 86 90 91 89 --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 77 72 81 84 92 86 84

Online Resources 66 59 61 75 82 80 74

Ease of finding materials online 63 55 58 77 83 81 75

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 65 59 62 78 80 79 73

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Ease of navigation 64 54 61 76 81 79 72

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Documents 76 74 78 81 88 86 87

Clarity 76 71 79 83 87 86 87

Organization of information 78 76 79 85 89 87 89

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 75 74 80 77 89 85 87

Relevance to your areas of need 78 78 79 82 87 88 88

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 74 71 75 78 86 86 84

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

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

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

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

ACSI 68 64 72 75 79 79 78

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 73 70 79 80 85 85 81

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 65 61 70 72 77 77 78

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 64 59 66 71 75 76 75

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 78 85

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 78 85
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 264

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 57% 20 47% 16

Agree 34% 12 41% 14

Disagree 6% 2 12% 4

Strongly disagree 3% 1 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 35 34

Job role

Project/State Director 100% 35 94% 32

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 3% 1

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 3% 1

Number of Respondents 35 34

Length of time in role

Less than one year 11% 4 6% 2

Between 1 - 3 years 37% 13 38% 13

Between 4 - 10 years 40% 14 38% 13

More than 10 years 11% 4 18% 6

Number of Respondents 35 34

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 9% 3

Did not receive 0% 0 91% 31

Number of Respondents 0 34
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 265

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program

Score Table

2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 27 0 0 29

ED Staff/Coordination 87 -- -- 94

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 91 -- -- 98

Responsiveness to your questions 80 -- -- 93

Professionalism -- -- -- 92

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 86 -- -- 93

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- 94

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 94 -- -- 98

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 96 -- -- 97

Online Resources 82 -- -- 88

Ease of finding materials online 82 -- -- 85

Quality of content -- -- -- 90

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 82 -- -- 86

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- 89

Ease of navigation 81 -- -- 87

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- 88

Information in Application Package 90 -- -- 93

Program Purpose 90 -- -- 92

Program Priorities 91 -- -- 92

Selection Criteria 88 -- -- 90

Review Process 88 -- -- 84

Budget Information and Forms 86 -- -- 87

Deadline for Submission 93 -- -- 96

Dollar Limit on Awards 91 -- -- 97

Page Limitation Instructions 91 -- -- 93

Formatting Instructions 89 -- -- 94

Program Contact 93 -- -- 99

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- 79

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- 80

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- 82

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- 84

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- 81

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- 80

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- 64

Technical Assistance -- -- -- 93

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- 93

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- --

ACSI 83 -- -- 84

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 88 -- -- 89

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 83 -- -- 82

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 77 -- -- 81

Trust -- -- -- 90

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 90
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 266

2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 27 0 0 29

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement 

Program

Responsiveness to your questions -- -- -- 90

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures -- -- -- 93

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- 92

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- 93

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- 92

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- 86

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- 84

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- 94

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- 92

Frequency of communication -- -- -- 90

Clarity of communication -- -- -- 89
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 267

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 69% 20

Agree 0% 0 28% 8

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 3% 1

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 29

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 79% 23

School Officer 0% 0 7% 2

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 3% 1

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 10% 3

Number of Respondents 0 29

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 28% 8

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 45% 13

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 17% 5

More than 10 years 0% 0 10% 3

Number of Respondents 0 29

Preferred method of communication - MSEIP

Individual Email 0% 0 93% 27

Blast/Distribution list email 0% 0 3% 1

Webinar 0% 0 3% 1

Number of Respondents 0 29
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 268

National Professional Development Program

Score Table

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 56 69 64 29 46 45 51

ED Staff/Coordination 85 81 84 91 95 86 92

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 88 86 87 93 94 88 96

Responsiveness to your questions 80 80 83 86 95 83 88

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 90 87 84 94 98 91 91

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 83 81 88 95 97 86 93

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 85 90 90 97 95 91 91

Online Resources 79 78 76 66 77 73 80

Ease of finding materials online 78 79 78 66 79 73 80

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 79 78 76 68 78 73 80

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Ease of navigation 79 80 77 64 75 70 79

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Documents 81 80 80 80 81 83 90

Clarity 81 78 79 82 80 84 90

Organization of information 83 81 81 83 81 84 90

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 81 80 80 77 79 80 89

Relevance to your areas of need 83 82 80 81 83 86 92

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 80 79 79 79 81 81 87

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 65

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

ACSI 75 73 78 71 77 81 80

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 83 79 83 80 82 86 85

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 71 70 75 66 76 78 79

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 70 69 74 66 71 77 76

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 93 92

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 93 92

National Professional Development Program

Technical assistance from OELA office -- -- -- -- -- 80 86

Technical assistance from program officer -- -- 72 74 84 82 82

Usefulness of OELA website -- -- 76 70 79 78 79

Usefulness of NCELA website -- -- 78 77 86 82 86

Usefulness of OELA Facebook -- -- 62 78 85 69 64
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 269

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 47% 21 63% 32

Agree 42% 19 33% 17

Disagree 7% 3 4% 2

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 4% 2 0% 0

Number of Respondents 45 51

Job role

Project/State Director 67% 30 69% 35

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 24% 11 14% 7

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 9% 4 18% 9

Number of Respondents 45 51

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 0% 0

Between 1 - 3 years 42% 19 24% 12

Between 4 - 10 years 27% 12 51% 26

More than 10 years 31% 14 25% 13

Number of Respondents 45 51

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 12% 6

Did not receive 0% 0 88% 45

Number of Respondents 0 51

NPD Cohort

2016 0% 0 58% 29

2017 0% 0 42% 21

Number of Respondents 0 50

Frequency of tech assistance from OELA office - NPD

At least weekly 0% 0 6% 3

Monthly 20% 9 25% 13

Quarterly 56% 25 47% 24

Yearly 24% 11 22% 11

Number of Respondents 45 51
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 270

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Frequency of monitoring tech support - NPD

At least weekly 0% 0 4% 2

Monthly 13% 6 20% 10

Quarterly 71% 32 61% 31

Yearly 16% 7 16% 8

Number of Respondents 45 51

Frequency of visiting OELA website - NPD

Weekly 11% 5 8% 4

Monthly 24% 11 27% 14

Every few months 62% 28 63% 32

Never 2% 1 2% 1

Number of Respondents 45 51

Frequency of visiting NCELA website - NPD

Weekly 4% 2 10% 5

Monthly 44% 20 41% 21

Every few months 49% 22 47% 24

Never 2% 1 2% 1

Number of Respondents 45 51

Frequency of visiting OELA Facebook - NPD

Weekly 2% 1 4% 2

Monthly 9% 4 10% 5

Every few months 16% 7 12% 6

Never 73% 33 75% 38

Number of Respondents 45 51
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 271

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program

Score Table

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 11 9 13 12 9 16 15

ED Staff/Coordination 95 96 82 83 95 84 91

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 94 98 85 76 92 83 91

Responsiveness to your questions 96 95 81 89 99 83 91

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 94 94 81 79 94 81 92

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 94 95 80 84 94 83 87

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 96 95 78 81 97 84 87

Online Resources 90 91 67 60 84 67 78

Ease of finding materials online 87 90 70 74 81 69 79

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 89 94 68 58 79 67 79

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Ease of navigation 91 92 67 58 83 66 77

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Documents 88 91 78 74 84 77 88

Clarity 88 89 76 73 81 78 89

Organization of information 89 92 76 75 84 78 90

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 89 92 79 77 85 79 88

Relevance to your areas of need 88 90 79 75 84 77 87

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 86 90 78 69 84 76 84

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

ACSI 86 90 75 66 89 76 85

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 92 95 81 70 95 81 91

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 83 86 74 65 86 74 87

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 82 89 69 63 85 70 76

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 82 89

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 82 89

Native American and Alaska Native Children in 

School Program

Technical assistance from OELA office -- -- -- -- -- 78 87

Technical assistance from program officer -- -- 68 79 91 78 90

Usefulness of OELA website -- -- 66 72 85 76 76

Usefulness of NCELA website -- -- 76 80 88 77 76

Usefulness of OELA Facebook -- -- 22 -- 100 53 58
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 272

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 44% 7 60% 9

Agree 44% 7 40% 6

Disagree 13% 2 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 16 15

Job role

Project/State Director 63% 10 87% 13

School Officer 6% 1 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 19% 3 13% 2

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 13% 2 0% 0

Number of Respondents 16 15

Length of time in role

Less than one year 13% 2 7% 1

Between 1 - 3 years 31% 5 40% 6

Between 4 - 10 years 38% 6 33% 5

More than 10 years 19% 3 20% 3

Number of Respondents 16 15

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 27% 4

Did not receive 0% 0 73% 11

Number of Respondents 0 15

NAM Cohort

2016 0% 0 53% 8

2018 0% 0 47% 7

Number of Respondents 0 15

Frequency of tech assistance from OELA office - NAM

At least weekly 6% 1 7% 1

Monthly 50% 8 53% 8

Quarterly 31% 5 40% 6

Yearly 13% 2 0% 0

Number of Respondents 16 15
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 273

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Frequency of monitoring tech support - NAM

At least weekly 13% 2 7% 1

Monthly 38% 6 40% 6

Quarterly 38% 6 47% 7

Yearly 13% 2 7% 1

Number of Respondents 16 15

Frequency of visiting OELA website - NAM

Daily 0% 0 0% 0

Weekly 6% 1 7% 1

Monthly 38% 6 13% 2

Every few months 56% 9 80% 12

Never 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 16 15

Frequency of visiting NCELA website - NAM

Weekly 0% 0 13% 2

Monthly 31% 5 27% 4

Every few months 50% 8 40% 6

Never 19% 3 20% 3

Number of Respondents 16 15

Frequency of visiting OELA Facebook - NAM

Weekly 0% 0 0% 0

Monthly 6% 1 0% 0

Every few months 19% 3 27% 4

Never 75% 12 73% 11

Number of Respondents 16 15
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 274

Native American Career and Technical Education Program

Score Table

2020

Sample Size 20

ED Staff/Coordination 82

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 84

Responsiveness to your questions 70

Professionalism 92

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 80

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

83

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 83

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 92

Online Resources 69

Ease of finding materials online 67

Quality of content 74

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 69

Accuracy of search results 65

Ease of navigation 65

Look and feel/Visual appearance 69

Documents 75

Clarity 72

Organization of information 76

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 75

Relevance to your areas of need 80

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 78

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements 68

Clarity of reporting requirements 71

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report 73

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically 74

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) 70

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project 68

Your understanding of how ED uses your data 52

Technical Assistance 70

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects 80

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management 73

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities 65

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program 63

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups 51

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project 44

ACSI 76

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 83

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 70

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 73

Trust 91

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 91

Native American Career and Technical Education 

Program

PCRN’s usefulness to your program 76

Effectiveness of DATE in helping you implement grant 

programs

68

TA received on project implementation and budget 

questions 76

Usefulness and relevance of project director meeting in 

providing TA 79
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 275

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 50% 10

Agree 0% 0 35% 7

Disagree 0% 0 15% 3

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 20

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 55% 11

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 35% 7

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 10% 2

Number of Respondents 0 20

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 10% 2

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 40% 8

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 35% 7

More than 10 years 0% 0 15% 3

Number of Respondents 0 20

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 5% 1

Did not receive 0% 0 95% 19

Number of Respondents 0 20
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 276

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions Program

Score Table

2020

Sample Size 12

ED Staff/Coordination 85

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 86

Responsiveness to your questions 86

Professionalism 89

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 87

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

87

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 78

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 70

Online Resources 66

Ease of finding materials online 69

Quality of content 70

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 66

Accuracy of search results 67

Ease of navigation 60

Look and feel/Visual appearance 61

Information in Application Package 87

Program Purpose 87

Program Priorities 86

Selection Criteria 84

Review Process 86

Budget Information and Forms 85

Deadline for Submission 89

Dollar Limit on Awards 86

Page Limitation Instructions 86

Formatting Instructions 84

Program Contact 90

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements 75

Clarity of reporting requirements 74

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report 79

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically 81

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) 79

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project 80

Your understanding of how ED uses your data 61

Technical Assistance 74

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects 74

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project --

ACSI 83

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 92

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 78

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 77

Trust 91

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 91
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 277

2020

Sample Size 12

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions 

Program

Responsiveness to your questions 82

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures 89

Ability to resolve issues 83

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication 83

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues 80

Timeliness of the grant award notification 72

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation 71

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees 78

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed 78

Frequency of communication 67

Clarity of communication 79
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 278

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 50% 6

Agree 0% 0 50% 6

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 12

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 83% 10

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 8% 1

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 8% 1

Number of Respondents 0 12

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 17% 2

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 33% 4

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 42% 5

More than 10 years 0% 0 8% 1

Number of Respondents 0 12

Preferred method of communication - NASNTI

Individual Email 0% 0 67% 8

Telephone 0% 0 25% 3

Other 0% 0 8% 1

Number of Respondents 0 12
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 279

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program

Score Table

2020

Sample Size 2

ED Staff/Coordination 85

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 83

Responsiveness to your questions 78

Professionalism 100

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 83

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

83

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 100

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 78

Online Resources 94

Ease of finding materials online 94

Quality of content 94

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 94

Accuracy of search results 94

Ease of navigation 94

Look and feel/Visual appearance 94

Documents 91

Clarity 89

Organization of information 89

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 94

Relevance to your areas of need 89

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 94

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements 81

Clarity of reporting requirements 89

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report 83

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically 89

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) 83

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project 83

Your understanding of how ED uses your data 56

Technical Assistance 72

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects 78

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management 78

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities 67

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program 72

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups 67

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project 78

ACSI 78

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 67

Trust 100

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 100

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education 

Program

PCRN’s usefulness to your program 83

Effectiveness of DATE in helping you implement grant 

programs

78

TA received on project implementation and budget 

questions 83

Usefulness and relevance of project director meeting in 

providing TA 94
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 280

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 50% 1

Agree 0% 0 50% 1

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 2

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 0% 0

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 50% 1

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 50% 1

Number of Respondents 0 2

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 0% 0

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 50% 1

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 0% 0

More than 10 years 0% 0 50% 1

Number of Respondents 0 2

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 50% 1

Did not receive 0% 0 50% 1

Number of Respondents 0 2
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 281

Native Hawaiian Education Act Program/Education of Native Hawaiian

Score Table

2020

Sample Size 24

ED Staff/Coordination 93

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 92

Responsiveness to your questions 89

Professionalism 98

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 92

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

94

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 93

Online Resources 79

Ease of finding materials online 79

Quality of content 82

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 79

Accuracy of search results 80

Ease of navigation 78

Look and feel/Visual appearance 74

Documents 86

Clarity 86

Organization of information 87

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 87

Relevance to your areas of need 87

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 84

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements 77

Clarity of reporting requirements 82

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report 76

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically 73

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) 79

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project 82

Your understanding of how ED uses your data 74

Technical Assistance 81

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects 89

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management 83

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities 79

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program 83

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups 81

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project 89

ACSI 82

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 88

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 81

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 77

Trust 90

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 90

Native Hawaiian Education Act Program/Education of 

Native Hawaiian

Knowledge of staff on program grant administration 

issues 92
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 282

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 54% 13

Agree 0% 0 46% 11

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 24

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 63% 15

School Officer 0% 0 8% 2

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 21% 5

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 8% 2

Number of Respondents 0 24

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 0% 0

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 38% 9

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 25% 6

More than 10 years 0% 0 38% 9

Number of Respondents 0 24

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 4% 1

Did not receive 0% 0 96% 23

Number of Respondents 0 24

Staff initiated tech assistance during past 3-6 months - NHE

Initiated tech assistance 0% 0 54% 13

Did not initiate 0% 0 46% 11

Number of Respondents 0 24

Technical assistance took place - NHE~

Project Directors’ meeting sponsored by the Department 0% 0 8% 1

Conference call/email exchange with your Program Officer 0% 0 92% 12

Program Officer 0% 0 38% 5

Other Program (or the Department) staff site visit 0% 0 8% 1

Number of Respondents 0 13
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 283

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs

Score Table

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 14 30 32 32 36 25 24

ED Staff/Coordination 88 83 79 75 81 68 83

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 91 89 79 80 81 66 85

Responsiveness to your questions 85 84 73 70 80 65 78

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 88 80 79 73 76 69 82

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 89 83 83 80 83 74 --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 90 78 82 81 83 75 81

Online Resources 69 70 73 68 70 58 72

Ease of finding materials online 68 69 72 69 70 58 70

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 70 69 72 66 70 57 72

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Ease of navigation 62 67 73 70 71 61 75

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Documents 78 77 72 66 72 67 76

Clarity 79 78 72 66 75 70 78

Organization of information 79 81 75 67 75 70 81

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 79 76 70 67 70 63 75

Relevance to your areas of need 79 77 72 67 71 70 77

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 76 75 71 63 69 60 71

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

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

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

ACSI 70 67 62 60 65 55 77

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 73 73 66 67 73 62 81

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 70 64 59 56 60 52 74
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 284

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 14 30 32 32 36 25 24

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency 

Programs

Responsiveness in answering questions - Tech 

Assistance Center (NDTAC) 84 81 80 79 81 87 84

Sufficiency of the guidance provided in responses to 

questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Meeting program compliance requirements - US 

Department of Education 82 85 81 70 76 60 72

Assisting you to impact performance results - US 

Department of Education 77 81 79 64 70 57 74

Support quality for collecting/submitting data - US 

Department of Education -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Meeting program compliance requirements - Tech 

Assistance Center (NDTAC) 86 86 85 80 83 80 87

Assisting to impact performance results - Tech 

Assistance Center (NDTAC) 79 84 84 83 82 78 85

Support quality for collecting/submitting data - Tech 

Assistance Center (NDTAC) -- -- -- -- -- -- 85
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 285

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 16% 4 42% 10

Agree 52% 13 50% 12

Disagree 28% 7 8% 2

Strongly disagree 4% 1 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 25 24

Job role

Project/State Director 68% 17 67% 16

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 32% 8 33% 8

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 25 24

Length of time in role

Less than one year 4% 1 4% 1

Between 1 - 3 years 44% 11 50% 12

Between 4 - 10 years 28% 7 33% 8

More than 10 years 24% 6 13% 3

Number of Respondents 25 24

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 96% 23

Did not receive 0% 0 4% 1

Number of Respondents 0 24
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 286

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002)

Score Table

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 37 48 0 77 48 47 96

ED Staff/Coordination 77 81 -- 84 90 90 91

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 76 82 -- 85 90 88 91

Responsiveness to your questions 76 83 -- 79 90 91 91

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 95

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 73 76 -- 83 90 91 91

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 72 77 -- 84 -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 75 81 -- 83 -- -- --

Online Resources 72 74 -- 78 81 81 83

Ease of finding materials online 70 69 -- 71 79 78 82

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 74 76 -- 80 83 83 84

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Ease of navigation 70 71 -- 78 77 78 82

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Documents 75 70 -- 78 82 85 87

Clarity 75 69 -- 76 82 84 87

Organization of information 75 72 -- 79 84 85 88

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 77 71 -- 79 81 86 87

Relevance to your areas of need 75 71 -- 80 83 86 87

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 76 68 -- 77 82 86 87

ACSI 68 70 -- 76 77 83 84

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 71 74 -- 79 82 89 89

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 65 68 -- 75 75 78 80

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 66 66 -- 73 75 81 82

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 86 88

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 86 88

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002)

Impact Aid staff`s responsiveness to answering 

questions 79 81 -- 86 94 95 89

Impact Aid staff`s supportiveness in helping complete 

application 79 83 -- 89 94 97 90

Impact Aid staff`s knowledge about technical material 80 81 -- 90 93 97 89

Effectiveness of documents in helping complete 

application 79 76 -- 82 84 -- 84
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 287

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 47% 22 49% 47

Agree 51% 24 48% 46

Disagree 2% 1 1% 1

Strongly disagree 0% 0 1% 1

Does not apply 0% 0 1% 1

Number of Respondents 47 96

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 0% 0

School Officer 6% 3 7% 7

Grant Coordinator 9% 4 6% 6

Superintendent 26% 12 35% 34

Business Manager 40% 19 30% 29

Other 19% 9 21% 20

Number of Respondents 47 96

Length of time in role

Less than one year 9% 4 5% 5

Between 1 - 3 years 19% 9 27% 26

Between 4 - 10 years 30% 14 20% 19

More than 10 years 43% 20 48% 46

Number of Respondents 47 96

Contacted Impact Aid Program for technical assistance - PFP

Contacted 30% 14 49% 47

Did not contact 70% 33 51% 49

Number of Respondents 47 96

Used written instruction and guidance documents for application -

PFP

Used 0% 0 84% 81

Did not use 0% 0 16% 15

Number of Respondents 0 96

Participated in meetings where Sec 7002 prog info provided - PFP

Participated 62% 29 61% 59

Did not participate 38% 18 39% 37

Number of Respondents 47 96

Presentation or materials helped understand responsibilities - PFP

Helped understand 97% 28 98% 58

Did not help understand 3% 1 2% 1

Number of Respondents 29 59
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 288

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003)

Score Table

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 37 66 81 77 49 50 100

ED Staff/Coordination 81 71 79 85 85 88 88

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 84 74 78 85 87 89 89

Responsiveness to your questions 79 71 80 84 82 88 87

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 92

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 78 71 77 81 86 87 87

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 80 67 75 82 -- -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 75 67 78 85 -- -- --

Online Resources 72 72 77 78 75 75 79

Ease of finding materials online 68 70 72 73 73 73 79

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 74 73 79 79 75 76 80

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Ease of navigation 71 71 74 78 74 74 76

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Documents 70 67 75 78 79 83 82

Clarity 69 65 76 78 78 83 82

Organization of information 70 67 77 80 80 84 83

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 70 67 75 78 79 82 82

Relevance to your areas of need 72 68 76 80 79 83 81

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 70 66 76 77 77 82 80

ACSI 64 64 71 74 75 79 78

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 70 69 76 79 80 82 82

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 61 61 67 72 73 78 76

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 60 62 69 71 71 78 76

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 85 82

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 85 82

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 

7003)

Responsiveness to answering questions -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Supportiveness in helping you complete your application -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Knowledge about technical material -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Effectiveness in providing TA or instructions regarding 

performance reports 74 72 79 82 79 80 82

Ease of reaching person who could address concern 68 69 72 81 75 83 87

Ability to resolve your issue 72 69 73 82 78 85 87
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 289

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 34% 17 35% 35

Agree 62% 31 58% 58

Disagree 2% 1 4% 4

Strongly disagree 0% 0 3% 3

Does not apply 2% 1 0% 0

Number of Respondents 50 100

Job role

Project/State Director 2% 1 0% 0

School Officer 4% 2 4% 4

Grant Coordinator 24% 12 12% 12

Superintendent 14% 7 18% 18

Business Manager 34% 17 33% 33

Other 22% 11 33% 33

Number of Respondents 50 100

Length of time in role

Less than one year 4% 2 3% 3

Between 1 - 3 years 22% 11 22% 22

Between 4 - 10 years 38% 19 35% 35

More than 10 years 36% 18 40% 40

Number of Respondents 50 100

Contacted the Impact Aid Program for technical assistance - FCC

Contacted 40% 20 67% 67

Did not contact 60% 30 33% 33

Number of Respondents 50 100

Used written instruction and guidance documents for Impact Aid 

application - FCC

Used 98% 49 94% 94

Did not use 2% 1 6% 6

Number of Respondents 50 100

Attended meeting where Sec 7003 prog info or review process 

provided - FCC

Participated 76% 38 67% 67

Did not participate 24% 12 33% 33

Number of Respondents 50 100

Presentation or materials helped understand responsibilities -

FCC

Helped understand 100% 38 99% 66

Did not help understand 0% 0 1% 1

Number of Respondents 38 67
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 290

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

School district contacted by Impact Aid Program in past year -

FCC

Contacted 44% 22 29% 29

Was not contacted 56% 28 71% 71

Number of Respondents 50 100

Letter provided sufficient explanation to prepare documents for 

review - FCC

Provided sufficient explanation 86% 19 93% 27

Did not provide sufficient explanation 14% 3 7% 2

Number of Respondents 22 29

Receive timely communications regarding outcome of review -

FCC

Received 80% 40 56% 56

Did not receive 20% 10 44% 44

Number of Respondents 50 100
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 291

Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI)

Score Table

2020

Sample Size 15

ED Staff/Coordination 95

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 95

Responsiveness to your questions 96

Professionalism 99

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 97

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

90

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 91

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 93

Online Resources 84

Ease of finding materials online 82

Quality of content 86

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 86

Accuracy of search results 87

Ease of navigation 82

Look and feel/Visual appearance 79

Information in Application Package 94

Program Purpose 96

Program Priorities 96

Selection Criteria 91

Review Process 91

Budget Information and Forms 92

Deadline for Submission 98

Dollar Limit on Awards 93

Page Limitation Instructions 97

Formatting Instructions 93

Program Contact 96

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements 81

Clarity of reporting requirements 78

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report 81

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically 85

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) 85

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project 84

Your understanding of how ED uses your data 72

Technical Assistance 94

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects 94

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project --

ACSI 86

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 90

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 86

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 82

Trust 94

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 94
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 292

2020

Sample Size 15

Predominantly Black Institutions (PBI)

Responsiveness to your questions 95

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures 94

Ability to resolve issues 95

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication 92

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues 92

Timeliness of the grant award notification 92

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation 90

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees 90

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed 87

Frequency of communication 84

Clarity of communication 92
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 293

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 67% 10

Agree 0% 0 27% 4

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 7% 1

Number of Respondents 0 15

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 80% 12

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 20% 3

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 15

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 7% 1

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 27% 4

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 53% 8

More than 10 years 0% 0 13% 2

Number of Respondents 0 15

Preferred method of communication - PBI

Individual Email 0% 0 87% 13

Blast/Distribution list email 0% 0 13% 2

Number of Respondents 0 15
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 294

Project Prevent

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 19 17 21 22 0 15

ED Staff/Coordination 90 88 95 97 -- 95

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 90 87 95 95 -- 95

Responsiveness to your questions 91 91 95 98 -- 94

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 99

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 90 89 94 96 -- 94

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 94

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 88 88 96 97 -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 90 90 96 96 -- 94

Online Resources 77 78 86 81 -- 85

Ease of finding materials online 80 78 83 89 -- 86

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 85

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 81 78 85 78 -- 84

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 85

Ease of navigation 78 76 86 84 -- 86

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 85

Documents 78 84 87 85 -- 89

Clarity 77 85 85 83 -- 92

Organization of information 79 85 87 85 -- 90

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 78 83 87 85 -- 89

Relevance to your areas of need 80 83 88 85 -- 85

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 78 81 87 84 -- 89

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 83

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 83

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 73

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 86

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 89

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 87

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 82

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 85

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 88

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 87

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 86

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 83

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 84

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 78

ACSI 73 83 84 82 -- 85

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 78 86 88 89 -- 90

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 69 82 80 76 -- 82

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 70 80 81 79 -- 83

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 94

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 94

Project Prevent

Responsiveness to questions about Project Prevent 

Grant Program requirements 92 93 95 96 -- 93

Timeliness in returning phone calls and responding to 

emails 94 93 95 96 -- 90

Effectiveness in providing technical assistance or 

guidance 89 95 97 95 -- 93

Frequency of communication 90 86 96 93 -- 92

Technical assistance - relevance and usefulness 85 88 88 91 -- 90

Technical assistance - frequency of communication 85 88 91 90 -- 90

Use of technology to deliver services 82 86 90 91 -- 93
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 295

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 67% 10

Agree 0% 0 33% 5

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 15

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 67% 10

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 13% 2

Superintendent 0% 0 7% 1

Business Manager 0% 0 7% 1

Other 0% 0 7% 1

Number of Respondents 0 15

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 33% 5

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 20% 3

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 40% 6

More than 10 years 0% 0 7% 1

Number of Respondents 0 15

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 27% 4

Did not receive 0% 0 73% 11

Number of Respondents 0 15
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 296

Promise Neighborhoods

Score Table

2019 2020

Sample Size 11 12

ED Staff/Coordination 81 93

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 82 93

Responsiveness to your questions 81 94

Professionalism -- 96

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 82 89

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- 90

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 79 --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 81 91

Online Resources 63 78

Ease of finding materials online 62 81

Quality of content -- 77

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 66 80

Accuracy of search results -- 76

Ease of navigation 61 78

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- 78

Documents 72 84

Clarity 70 87

Organization of information 73 84

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 72 86

Relevance to your areas of need 74 81

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 70 79

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- 74

Clarity of reporting requirements -- 81

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- 61

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- 76

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- 84

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- 76

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- 64

Technical Assistance -- 80

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- 82

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- 72

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- 81

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- 78

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- 90

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- 90

ACSI 78 79

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 81 83

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 79 77

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 75 77

Trust 74 87

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 74 87

Promise Neighborhoods

ED Program Contacts quality of assistance 87 86

Urban Institute`s Needs Assessment Quality 79 75

Urban Institute`s other services 76 74

SCORECARD system 77 65

GRADS 360 system 53 52
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 297

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 64% 7 42% 5

Agree 27% 3 50% 6

Disagree 9% 1 8% 1

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 11 12

Job role

Project/State Director 91% 10 83% 10

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 0% 0

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 9% 1 17% 2

Number of Respondents 11 12

Length of time in role

Less than one year 18% 2 8% 1

Between 1 - 3 years 55% 6 50% 6

Between 4 - 10 years 27% 3 33% 4

More than 10 years 0% 0 8% 1

Number of Respondents 11 12

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 58% 7

Did not receive 0% 0 42% 5

Number of Respondents 0 12

Asked for assistance in areas unrelated to fiscal or grant 

admin issues - PN

Asked 45% 5 33% 4

Did not ask 55% 6 67% 8

Number of Respondents 11 12
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 298

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans Program

Score Table

2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 17 0 0 15

ED Staff/Coordination 82 -- -- 85

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 91 -- -- 90

Responsiveness to your questions 75 -- -- 74

Professionalism -- -- -- 86

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 88 -- -- 82

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- 86

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 79 -- -- 93

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 79 -- -- 93

Online Resources 77 -- -- 82

Ease of finding materials online 76 -- -- 83

Quality of content -- -- -- 85

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 77 -- -- 82

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- 86

Ease of navigation 75 -- -- 83

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- 80

Information in Application Package 88 -- -- 90

Program Purpose 85 -- -- 89

Program Priorities 89 -- -- 90

Selection Criteria 87 -- -- 87

Review Process 85 -- -- 89

Budget Information and Forms 81 -- -- 85

Deadline for Submission 94 -- -- 92

Dollar Limit on Awards 93 -- -- 92

Page Limitation Instructions 87 -- -- 93

Formatting Instructions 87 -- -- 88

Program Contact 97 -- -- 93

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- 82

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- 79

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- 88

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- 85

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- 81

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- 83

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- 73

Technical Assistance -- -- -- 77

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- 77

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- --

ACSI 76 -- -- 86

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 82 -- -- 88

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 74 -- -- 84

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 72 -- -- 84

Trust -- -- -- 87

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- 87
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 299

2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 17 0 0 15

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for 

Hispanic Americans Program

Responsiveness to your questions 84 -- -- 75

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures 84 -- -- 77

Ability to resolve issues 83 -- -- 75

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication 83 -- -- 74

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues 79 -- -- 76

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- 90

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- 90

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- 84

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- 84

Frequency of communication -- -- -- 76

Clarity of communication -- -- -- 79
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 300

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 80% 12

Agree 0% 0 13% 2

Disagree 0% 0 7% 1

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 15

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 67% 10

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 13% 2

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 20% 3

Number of Respondents 0 15

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 7% 1

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 40% 6

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 40% 6

More than 10 years 0% 0 13% 2

Number of Respondents 0 15

Preferred method of communication - PPOHA

Individual Email 0% 0 87% 13

Blast/Distribution list email 0% 0 7% 1

Other 0% 0 7% 1

Number of Respondents 0 15
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 301

REAP-Rural and Low Income School (RLIS) Program

Score Table

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 9 23 11 6 25 31 33

ED Staff/Coordination 90 81 87 85 78 84 90

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 92 82 86 85 85 82 90

Responsiveness to your questions 88 76 87 78 70 79 87

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 96

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 89 77 84 94 77 84 89

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 91 82 89 78 79 84 --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 82 78 83 83 75 80 85

Online Resources 76 71 79 71 67 70 78

Ease of finding materials online 64 70 78 74 68 73 77

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 77 73 81 69 68 68 77

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Ease of navigation 77 71 78 70 67 71 78

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Documents 73 67 73 65 74 79 85

Clarity 77 70 72 65 74 79 87

Organization of information 74 71 75 69 76 80 87

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 69 66 72 67 73 78 85

Relevance to your areas of need 73 66 74 69 78 81 85

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 72 60 68 57 70 79 81

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

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

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

ACSI 74 62 64 64 67 72 77

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 79 69 69 69 72 76 81

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 70 57 63 61 64 70 76

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 70 59 61 63 63 71 74

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 81 88

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 81 88
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 302

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 29% 9 55% 18

Agree 52% 16 36% 12

Disagree 10% 3 9% 3

Strongly disagree 3% 1 0% 0

Does not apply 6% 2 0% 0

Number of Respondents 31 33

Job role

Project/State Director 74% 23 73% 24

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 23% 7 21% 7

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 3% 1 3% 1

Other 0% 0 3% 1

Number of Respondents 31 33

Length of time in role

Less than one year 16% 5 12% 4

Between 1 - 3 years 29% 9 36% 12

Between 4 - 10 years 35% 11 36% 12

More than 10 years 19% 6 15% 5

Number of Respondents 31 33

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 27% 9

Did not receive 0% 0 73% 24

Number of Respondents 0 33

How heard about REAP program updates and events - REAPRLIS~

Email announcements from REAP 0% 0 97% 32

Newsletter 0% 0 27% 9

U.S. Department of Education website 0% 0 24% 8

Other 0% 0 9% 3

Number of Respondents 0 33
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 303

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Future technical assistance needed for grant - REAPRLIS~

Use of grant funds 45% 14 27% 9

Use of G5 16% 5 15% 5

Use of Max.gov 35% 11 18% 6

Providing Technical Assistance to Grantees 35% 11 48% 16

REAP eligibility data and estimating award amounts 35% 11 39% 13

Consolidated grant application process 6% 2 6% 2

Grant eligibility data review and submission 26% 8 30% 10

Fiscal accounting procedures 16% 5 15% 5

Monitoring RLIS grantees 55% 17 45% 15

Use of grant funds for administrative costs 3% 1 9% 3

Reporting and use of data 16% 5 24% 8

Other 3% 1 0% 0

Number of Respondents 31 33
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 304

REAP-Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) Program

Score Table

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 8 29 46 45 79 83 53

ED Staff/Coordination 85 88 84 83 83 83 90

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 93 88 84 83 85 84 90

Responsiveness to your questions 81 88 84 80 82 83 91

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 89 90 82 81 87 86 93

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 72 88 85 81 84 85 --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 72 82 86 82 85 86 84

Online Resources 79 75 73 64 73 70 78

Ease of finding materials online 78 68 69 60 72 68 76

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 81 75 73 66 76 75 80

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Ease of navigation 73 75 70 61 70 68 76

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Documents 89 74 74 72 77 77 81

Clarity 89 74 73 70 75 75 81

Organization of information 90 75 74 72 77 75 82

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 89 71 73 71 77 76 83

Relevance to your areas of need 89 77 75 74 77 80 81

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 89 73 73 70 77 79 81

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- 100

ACSI 83 64 69 72 73 76 83

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 88 66 72 75 77 80 88

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 82 64 68 71 71 73 79

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 78 63 67 70 72 73 80

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 82 87

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 82 87

REAP-Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) 

Program

Clarity of instructions for accessing and completing the 

application -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Ease of accessing the application using the unique link in 

the invitation email -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Navigating the application on the MAX.gov survey tool -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Preparing and completing the information requested on 

the application -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Ease of submitting the application -- -- -- -- -- -- 90

Utilizing the confirmation email -- -- -- -- -- -- 89
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 305

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and services

Strongly agree 46% 38 58% 31

Agree 47% 39 40% 21

Disagree 6% 5 2% 1

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 1% 1 0% 0

Number of Respondents 83 53

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 0% 0

School Officer 2% 2 4% 2

Grant Coordinator 5% 4 6% 3

Superintendent 35% 29 47% 25

Business Manager 52% 43 36% 19

Other 6% 5 8% 4

Number of Respondents 83 53

Length of time in role

Less than one year 4% 3 4% 2

Between 1 - 3 years 14% 12 28% 15

Between 4 - 10 years 45% 37 42% 22

More than 10 years 37% 31 26% 14

Number of Respondents 83 53

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 2% 1

Did not receive 0% 0 98% 52

Number of Respondents 0 53

How heard about REAP program updates and events - REAPSRS~

Email announcements from REAP 0% 0 87% 46

Newsletter 0% 0 6% 3

U.S. Department of Education website 0% 0 17% 9

State educational agencies 0% 0 36% 19

Other 0% 0 2% 1

Number of Respondents 0 53
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 306

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Future technical assistance needed for grant - REAPSRS~

Use of funds 0% 0 51% 27

Use of G5 0% 0 38% 20

Grant application process 0% 0 45% 24

EDGAR 0% 0 9% 5

REAP flexibility 0% 0 51% 27

Reporting and use of data 0% 0 21% 11

REAP eligibility data and estimating award amounts 0% 0 40% 21

More communication of resources 0% 0 4% 2

Other 0% 0 2% 1

Number of Respondents 0 53
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 307

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program

Score Table

2020

Sample Size 12

ED Staff/Coordination 85

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 77

Responsiveness to your questions 84

Professionalism 96

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 79

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

86

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 85

Online Resources 66

Ease of finding materials online 63

Quality of content 69

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 62

Accuracy of search results 66

Ease of navigation 67

Look and feel/Visual appearance 68

Documents 76

Clarity 70

Organization of information 78

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 76

Relevance to your areas of need 80

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 76

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements 65

Clarity of reporting requirements 65

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report 72

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically 63

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) 66

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project 65

Your understanding of how ED uses your data 56

Technical Assistance 61

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects 74

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management 62

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities 56

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program 60

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups 56

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project --

ACSI 68

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 80

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 61

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 61

Trust 73

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 73

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program

Usefulness of messages that are disseminated via RSA 

listserv 75

Timeliness of messages that are disseminated via RSA 

listserv 75

Effectiveness in training vocational rehabilitation 

counselors for employment 94
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 308

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 50% 6

Agree 0% 0 33% 4

Disagree 0% 0 8% 1

Strongly disagree 0% 0 8% 1

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 12

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 75% 9

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 17% 2

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 8% 1

Number of Respondents 0 12

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 8% 1

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 25% 3

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 8% 1

More than 10 years 0% 0 58% 7

Number of Respondents 0 12

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 0% 0

Did not receive 0% 0 100% 12

Number of Respondents 0 12

Training would like provided - RLTT

Statutory and regulatory program requirements 0% 0 58% 7

Payback requirements 0% 0 17% 2

Uniform Guidance 0% 0 17% 2

Calculating the required 10 percent match 0% 0 8% 1

Number of Respondents 0 12
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 309

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools

Score Table

2019 2020

Sample Size 12 18

ED Staff/Coordination 65 56

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 81 62

Responsiveness to your questions 64 55

Professionalism -- 67

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 77 50

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- 48

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 51 --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 63 44

Online Resources 55 56

Ease of finding materials online 54 56

Quality of content -- 53

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 52 56

Accuracy of search results -- 51

Ease of navigation 61 56

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- 61

Documents 65 50

Clarity 59 51

Organization of information 64 52

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 67 48

Relevance to your areas of need 72 53

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 66 47

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- 40

Clarity of reporting requirements -- 40

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- 49

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- 41

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- 39

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- 36

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- 31

Technical Assistance -- 40

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- 47

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- 32

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- 34

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- 30

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- 41

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- 50

ACSI 59 48

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 61 54

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 56 46

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 58 42

Trust 60 56

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 60 56

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter 

Schools

Dissemination of resources and opportunities the CSP 

provides 59 55

Comms and info accessible and provided in timely 

manner

50 54

Technical assistance receive on project implementation 

and budget questions 63 53

Assistance gives opportunity to give staff an 

understanding of your project 54 52

Guidance CSP provides on Federal grant compliance 50 46
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 310

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 17% 2 11% 2

Agree 67% 8 33% 6

Disagree 8% 1 50% 9

Strongly disagree 0% 0 6% 1

Does not apply 8% 1 0% 0

Number of Respondents 12 18

Job role

Project/State Director 58% 7 44% 8

School Officer 0% 0 6% 1

Grant Coordinator 33% 4 33% 6

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 6% 1

Other 8% 1 11% 2

Number of Respondents 12 18

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 0% 0

Between 1 - 3 years 67% 8 50% 9

Between 4 - 10 years 33% 4 44% 8

More than 10 years 0% 0 6% 1

Number of Respondents 12 18

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 11% 2

Did not receive 0% 0 89% 16

Number of Respondents 0 18
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 311

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program

Score Table

2019 2020

Sample Size 38 31

ED Staff/Coordination 64 75

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 70 76

Responsiveness to your questions 59 72

Professionalism -- 90

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 63 66

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- 72

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 56 66

Online Resources 53 61

Ease of finding materials online 52 57

Quality of content -- 63

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 55 59

Accuracy of search results -- 62

Ease of navigation 52 60

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- 63

Documents 60 71

Clarity 59 68

Organization of information 65 76

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 54 67

Relevance to your areas of need 70 77

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 53 66

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- 65

Clarity of reporting requirements -- 68

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- 55

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- 70

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- 69

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- 64

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- 65

Technical Assistance -- 64

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- 70

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- 61

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- 59

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- 60

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- 62

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- 91

ACSI 49 60

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 57 68

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 46 56

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 42 55

Trust 56 66

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 56 66
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 312

2019 2020

Sample Size 38 31

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program

Responsiveness to questions and requests for technical 

assistance 61 71

Supportiveness in helping complete Unified or Combined 

State Plan 64 70

Dissemination of subregulatory guidance 61 74

Provision of effective training and dissemination of 

relevant information 58 65

Data Collection and Reporting 56 74

Fiscal/Grant Management 67 73

Programmatic 59 72

Technical Assistance 59 71

Utility of website for entering required data, retrieving and 

revising reports 62 66

Ease of navigating website 57 64

Usefulness of information available on the website 57 68

Website technical support 67 66
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 313

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 8% 3 13% 4

Agree 53% 20 58% 18

Disagree 26% 10 16% 5

Strongly disagree 11% 4 13% 4

Does not apply 3% 1 0% 0

Number of Respondents 38 31

Job role

Project/State Director 87% 33 90% 28

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 3% 1 0% 0

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 5% 2 0% 0

Other 5% 2 10% 3

Number of Respondents 38 31

Length of time in role

Less than one year 8% 3 3% 1

Between 1 - 3 years 45% 17 39% 12

Between 4 - 10 years 37% 14 42% 13

More than 10 years 11% 4 16% 5

Number of Respondents 38 31

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 39% 12

Did not receive 0% 0 61% 19

Number of Respondents 0 31
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 314

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEA)

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 45 57 55 59 40 53

ED Staff/Coordination 94 94 96 96 75 93

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 93 92 95 96 79 95

Responsiveness to your questions 95 95 97 96 76 88

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 97

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 96 94 93 97 74 91

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 93

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 93 94 95 97 76 --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 94 93 95 94 72 91

Online Resources 78 83 86 90 67 83

Ease of finding materials online 81 87 86 89 71 82

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 85

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 79 85 89 89 65 81

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 83

Ease of navigation 77 83 87 88 69 82

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 84

Documents 78 88 88 91 74 87

Clarity 77 87 88 91 75 87

Organization of information 79 88 88 91 78 87

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 78 87 89 92 75 88

Relevance to your areas of need 79 88 89 93 77 87

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 78 87 88 92 72 86

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 82

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 83

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 82

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 77

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 83

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 86

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 80

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 84

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 84

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 84

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 87

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 83

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 82

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 92

ACSI 75 84 87 90 77 82

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 80 88 91 95 80 86

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 73 83 84 87 76 80

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 71 81 84 88 74 79

Trust -- -- -- -- 76 92

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 76 92
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 315

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 45% 18 60% 32

Agree 43% 17 38% 20

Disagree 10% 4 0% 0

Strongly disagree 3% 1 2% 1

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 40 53

Job role

Project/State Director 43% 17 72% 38

School Officer 0% 0 2% 1

Grant Coordinator 53% 21 21% 11

Superintendent 0% 0 2% 1

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 5% 2 4% 2

Number of Respondents 40 53

Length of time in role

Less than one year 10% 4 43% 23

Between 1 - 3 years 20% 8 42% 22

Between 4 - 10 years 57% 23 4% 2

More than 10 years 13% 5 11% 6

Number of Respondents 40 53

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 25% 13

Did not receive 0% 0 75% 40

Number of Respondents 0 53
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 316

School Climate Transformation Grants (SEAs)

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 7 13 10 10 0 11

ED Staff/Coordination 84 85 92 92 -- 88

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 78 89 90 93 -- 85

Responsiveness to your questions 85 90 92 92 -- 90

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 97

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 82 83 91 89 -- 86

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 87

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 78 81 93 100 -- --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 78 76 93 92 -- 90

Online Resources 67 74 86 86 -- 86

Ease of finding materials online 63 70 88 89 -- 85

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 90

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 67 75 88 89 -- 88

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 85

Ease of navigation 70 76 87 81 -- 83

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 83

Documents 75 77 87 83 -- 84

Clarity 72 76 86 83 -- 84

Organization of information 72 76 88 83 -- 86

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 78 77 88 84 -- 84

Relevance to your areas of need 76 79 88 85 -- 86

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 78 77 84 83 -- 82

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 85

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 90

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 90

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- 74

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 83

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 86

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 83

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 88

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 85

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- 92

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- 92

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- 89

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- 91

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- 94

ACSI 59 74 78 79 -- 83

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 68 81 87 82 -- 87

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 51 69 73 79 -- 83

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 56 69 73 74 -- 80

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 91

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 91

School Climate Transformation Grants (SEAs) 

program

Helpfulness of technical assistance -- -- -- -- -- 83
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 317

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 55% 6

Agree 0% 0 45% 5

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 11

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 82% 9

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 18% 2

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 11

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 0% 0

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 55% 6

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 27% 3

More than 10 years 0% 0 18% 2

Number of Respondents 0 11

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 64% 7

Did not receive 0% 0 36% 4

Number of Respondents 0 11

Frequency of tech assistance from OSSS office - SCTG SEA

Monthly 0% 0 64% 7

Quarterly 0% 0 36% 4

Number of Respondents 0 11

Most helpful form of tech assistance - SCTG SEA

Written guidance 0% 0 9% 1

Email communication 0% 0 36% 4

Annual meetings/conferences 0% 0 55% 6

Number of Respondents 0 11
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 318

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

TA content most useful - SCTG SEA~

Using data for effective student outcomes 0% 0 64% 7

Leveraging alignment, integration and sustainability 0% 0 73% 8

Effectiveness and efficiency of communications 0% 0 9% 1

Leveraging public/private partnerships for sustainability 0% 0 9% 1

Federal project management 0% 0 36% 4

Federal grant fiscal management 0% 0 36% 4

Federal grant contracting do’s and don’ts 0% 0 36% 4

Federal grant regulations 0% 0 18% 2

Federal grant administration 0% 0 9% 1

Other 0% 0 9% 1

Number of Respondents 0 11
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 319

Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC)

Score Table

2020

Sample Size 8

ED Staff/Coordination 97

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 96

Responsiveness to your questions 100

Professionalism 100

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 99

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

93

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 97

Online Resources 74

Ease of finding materials online 74

Quality of content 76

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 69

Accuracy of search results 81

Ease of navigation 78

Look and feel/Visual appearance 69

Documents 85

Clarity 81

Organization of information 85

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 89

Relevance to your areas of need 89

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 81

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements 84

Clarity of reporting requirements 86

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report 88

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically 97

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) 93

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project 74

Your understanding of how ED uses your data 65

Technical Assistance 84

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects 96

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management 76

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities 76

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program 76

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups 84

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project 72

ACSI 83

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 88

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 79

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 81

Trust 96

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 96

Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) 

program

Ability to resolve issues 100

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication 100

Frequency of communication 98

Overall satisfaction with service provided by the program 

officer 100

Satisfaction with the Program Director’s Meeting 90
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 320

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 63% 5

Agree 0% 0 38% 3

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 8

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 100% 8

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 0% 0

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 8

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 0% 0

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 100% 8

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 0% 0

More than 10 years 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 8

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 50% 4

Did not receive 0% 0 50% 4

Number of Respondents 0 8
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 321

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU)

Score Table

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 56 0 60 0 0 0 26

ED Staff/Coordination 73 -- 81 -- -- -- 91

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 77 -- 83 -- -- -- 93

Responsiveness to your questions 66 -- 81 -- -- -- 89

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 94

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 71 -- 81 -- -- -- 92

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 67 -- 77 -- -- -- 88

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 70 -- 79 -- -- -- 90

Online Resources 72 -- 76 -- -- -- 78

Ease of finding materials online 69 -- 74 -- -- -- 77

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 70 -- 75 -- -- -- 76

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Ease of navigation 72 -- 77 -- -- -- 78

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Information in Application Package 83 -- 84 -- -- -- 90

Program Purpose 84 -- 85 -- -- -- 92

Program Priorities 84 -- 82 -- -- -- 90

Selection Criteria 82 -- 82 -- -- -- 90

Review Process 77 -- 80 -- -- -- 87

Budget Information and Forms 82 -- 84 -- -- -- 90

Deadline for Submission 84 -- 85 -- -- -- 90

Dollar Limit on Awards 84 -- 87 -- -- -- 88

Page Limitation Instructions 84 -- 84 -- -- -- 86

Formatting Instructions 79 -- 83 -- -- -- 88

Program Contact 87 -- 88 -- -- -- 93

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 81

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 65 -- 71 -- -- -- 82

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 71 -- 76 -- -- -- 88

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 62 -- 70 -- -- -- 80

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 62 -- 67 -- -- -- 78

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 91
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 322

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 56 0 60 0 0 0 26

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and 

Universities (HBCU) program

Responsiveness to your questions 68 -- 81 -- -- -- 87

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures 80 -- 83 -- -- -- 90

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 93

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 89

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- -- 88

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- -- 87

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 88
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 323

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 46% 12

Agree 0% 0 42% 11

Disagree 0% 0 4% 1

Strongly disagree 0% 0 8% 2

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 26

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 77% 20

School Officer 0% 0 4% 1

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 15% 4

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 4% 1

Number of Respondents 0 26

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 8% 2

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 19% 5

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 42% 11

More than 10 years 0% 0 31% 8

Number of Respondents 0 26

Preferred method of communication - HBCU

Individual Email 0% 0 77% 20

Blast/Distribution list email 0% 0 12% 3

Telephone 0% 0 8% 2

Other 0% 0 4% 1

Number of Respondents 0 26
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 324

Strengthening Institutions Program

Score Table

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 102 0 0 120 144 107

ED Staff/Coordination 78 -- -- 82 84 88

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 83 -- -- 86 84 91

Responsiveness to your questions 70 -- -- 79 81 81

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- 93

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 76 -- -- 84 86 86

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- 85

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 82 -- -- 83 85 86

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 85 -- -- 87 86 88

Online Resources 72 -- -- 63 69 74

Ease of finding materials online 67 -- -- 64 69 73

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- 75

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 72 -- -- 62 69 74

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- 74

Ease of navigation 72 -- -- 66 70 74

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- 71

Information in Application Package 85 -- -- 84 87 86

Program Purpose 85 -- -- 86 88 85

Program Priorities 85 -- -- 84 88 85

Selection Criteria 81 -- -- 84 85 84

Review Process 79 -- -- 83 82 81

Budget Information and Forms 82 -- -- 80 83 83

Deadline for Submission 88 -- -- 86 90 90

Dollar Limit on Awards 86 -- -- 87 88 88

Page Limitation Instructions 87 -- -- 85 87 87

Formatting Instructions 85 -- -- 81 85 84

Program Contact 86 -- -- 86 90 88

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- 70

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- 70

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- 71

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

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- 68

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- 72

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- 61

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- 76

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- 76

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 67 -- -- 64 77 75

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 73 -- -- 73 84 82

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 65 -- -- 61 74 72

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 62 -- -- 58 71 70
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 325

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 102 0 0 120 144 107

Trust -- -- -- -- 85 82

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- 85 82

Strengthening Institutions Program

Responsiveness to questions -- -- -- 76 82 77

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 85 -- -- 81 86 86

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- 80 87 82

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- 78 85 80

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- 74 83 78

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- 78

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- 80

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- 87

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- 78

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- 72

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- 77

Post award guidelines 74 -- -- -- -- --

Performance reports 72 -- -- -- -- --
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 326

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 42% 61 43% 46

Agree 49% 71 42% 45

Disagree 3% 4 9% 10

Strongly disagree 1% 1 4% 4

Does not apply 5% 7 2% 2

Number of Respondents 144 107

Job role

Project/State Director 58% 84 64% 69

School Officer 7% 10 5% 5

Grant Coordinator 31% 44 25% 27

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 4% 6 6% 6

Number of Respondents 144 107

Length of time in role

Less than one year 26% 37 16% 17

Between 1 - 3 years 36% 52 49% 52

Between 4 - 10 years 32% 46 33% 35

More than 10 years 6% 9 3% 3

Number of Respondents 144 107

Preferred method of communication - SIP

Individual Email 0% 0 91% 97

Blast/Distribution list email 0% 0 4% 4

Telephone 0% 0 1% 1

Webinar 0% 0 3% 3

Other 0% 0 2% 2

Number of Respondents 0 107
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 327

Student Support and Academic Enrichment

Score Table

2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 31 22 36

ED Staff/Coordination 69 62 82

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 77 68 84

Responsiveness to your questions 70 54 77

Professionalism -- -- 92

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 76 69 79

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- 78

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 72 65 --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 74 57 77

Online Resources 64 60 71

Ease of finding materials online 61 60 70

Quality of content -- -- 70

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 62 60 68

Accuracy of search results -- -- 68

Ease of navigation 64 61 70

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- 72

Documents 64 69 80

Clarity 66 74 80

Organization of information 69 73 83

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 61 66 78

Relevance to your areas of need 65 73 81

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 60 57 76

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- 64

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- 70

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- 59

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- 76

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- 76

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- 55

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- 54

Technical Assistance -- -- 80

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- 83

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- 77

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- 77

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- 76

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- 86

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- 85

ACSI 56 51 75

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 61 56 81

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 52 47 71

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 54 51 70

Trust -- 61 87

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- 61 87

Student Support and Academic Enrichment

Usefulness of the NCSSLE website -- -- 73

Usefulness of the Title IV Part A Portal -- -- 84
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 328

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 9% 2 33% 12

Agree 68% 15 61% 22

Disagree 18% 4 6% 2

Strongly disagree 5% 1 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 22 36

Job role

Project/State Director 86% 19 69% 25

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 14% 3 19% 7

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 11% 4

Number of Respondents 22 36

Length of time in role

Less than one year 9% 2 22% 8

Between 1 - 3 years 59% 13 44% 16

Between 4 - 10 years 27% 6 25% 9

More than 10 years 5% 1 8% 3

Number of Respondents 22 36

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 67% 24

Did not receive 0% 0 33% 12

Number of Respondents 0 36

Frequency of visiting NCSSLE website - SSAE

Weekly 0% 0 22% 8

Monthly 0% 0 31% 11

Every few months 0% 0 36% 13

Never 0% 0 11% 4

Number of Respondents 0 36

Frequency of visiting Title IV Part A Portal - SSAE

Daily 0% 0 6% 2

Weekly 0% 0 44% 16

Monthly 0% 0 31% 11

Never 0% 0 19% 7

Number of Respondents 0 36
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 329

Student Support Services

Score Table

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 114 0 131 0 0 0 110

ED Staff/Coordination 80 -- 78 -- -- -- 78

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 85 -- 81 -- -- -- 83

Responsiveness to your questions 76 -- 77 -- -- -- 72

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 86

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 78 -- 75 -- -- -- 74

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 74 -- 74 -- -- -- 74

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 82 -- 78 -- -- -- 78

Online Resources 74 -- 71 -- -- -- 73

Ease of finding materials online 71 -- 68 -- -- -- 75

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 72

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 75 -- 71 -- -- -- 74

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Ease of navigation 73 -- 69 -- -- -- 73

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Information in Application Package 83 -- 84 -- -- -- 87

Program Purpose 85 -- 87 -- -- -- 88

Program Priorities 84 -- 84 -- -- -- 87

Selection Criteria 84 -- 85 -- -- -- 87

Review Process 80 -- 81 -- -- -- 83

Budget Information and Forms 79 -- 80 -- -- -- 84

Deadline for Submission 84 -- 87 -- -- -- 89

Dollar Limit on Awards 82 -- 83 -- -- -- 87

Page Limitation Instructions 85 -- 86 -- -- -- 88

Formatting Instructions 83 -- 83 -- -- -- 86

Program Contact 85 -- 84 -- -- -- 87

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 79

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 82

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 78

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 68 -- 68 -- -- -- 73

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 74 -- 74 -- -- -- 80

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 66 -- 65 -- -- -- 71

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 64 -- 63 -- -- -- 67
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 330

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 114 0 131 0 0 0 110

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Student Support Services 80 -- 76 -- -- -- 70

Responsiveness to your questions 75 -- 73 -- -- -- 74

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures 84 -- 81 -- -- -- 80

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- -- 45

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- -- 57

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- -- 68

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 64

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 70
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 331

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 31% 34

Agree 0% 0 55% 60

Disagree 0% 0 9% 10

Strongly disagree 0% 0 4% 4

Does not apply 0% 0 2% 2

Number of Respondents 0 110

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 88% 97

School Officer 0% 0 1% 1

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 5% 6

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 5% 6

Number of Respondents 0 110

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 5% 5

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 32% 35

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 34% 37

More than 10 years 0% 0 30% 33

Number of Respondents 0 110

Preferred method of communication - SSS

Individual Email 0% 0 85% 94

Blast/Distribution list email 0% 0 8% 9

Telephone 0% 0 1% 1

Webinar 0% 0 5% 5

Other 0% 0 1% 1

Number of Respondents 0 110
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 332

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program

Score Table

2019 2020

Sample Size 14 18

ED Staff/Coordination 80 68

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 85 71

Responsiveness to your questions 72 70

Professionalism -- 82

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 92 65

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- 56

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 75 --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 77 57

Online Resources 67 65

Ease of finding materials online 68 67

Quality of content -- 67

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 67 66

Accuracy of search results -- 62

Ease of navigation 70 64

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- 64

Documents 79 59

Clarity 76 63

Organization of information 78 62

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 79 59

Relevance to your areas of need 81 58

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 79 50

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- 52

Clarity of reporting requirements -- 49

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- 57

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- 58

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- 55

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- 56

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- 33

Technical Assistance -- 61

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- 65

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- 58

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- 61

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- 56

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- 50

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- 93

ACSI 68 57

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 75 62

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 65 54

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 63 54

Trust 74 60

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 74 60

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program

Assistance in improving program planning and 

implementation 71 64

Providing relevant information and ideas 74 64

Connecting you with other experts or practitioners 74 72

Implementing a meaningful, rigorous evaluation 61 48

Gaining helpful tech assistance to conduct meaningful, 

rigorous evaluation 68 54
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 333

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 43% 6 6% 1

Agree 50% 7 39% 7

Disagree 0% 0 39% 7

Strongly disagree 7% 1 6% 1

Does not apply 0% 0 11% 2

Number of Respondents 14 18

Job role

Project/State Director 57% 8 61% 11

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 21% 3 28% 5

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 7% 1 0% 0

Other 14% 2 11% 2

Number of Respondents 14 18

Length of time in role

Less than one year 7% 1 6% 1

Between 1 - 3 years 43% 6 44% 8

Between 4 - 10 years 29% 4 33% 6

More than 10 years 21% 3 17% 3

Number of Respondents 14 18

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 17% 3

Did not receive 0% 0 83% 15

Number of Respondents 0 18

SEED Cohort

FY 2015 23% 3 0% 0

FY 2016 Evaluation Extension 8% 1 0% 0

FY 2017 31% 4 39% 7

FY 2018 38% 5 61% 11

Number of Respondents 13 18
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 334

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants

Score Table

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 57 19 31 24 28 17 26

ED Staff/Coordination 86 69 74 74 78 72 83

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 85 71 73 81 79 75 86

Responsiveness to your questions 87 68 70 69 78 64 81

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 91

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 85 66 71 72 74 79 81

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 83 64 80 80 75 79 --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 84 65 79 78 80 72 74

Online Resources 64 55 63 70 64 47 51

Ease of finding materials online 59 49 59 65 65 48 53

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 58

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 63 53 62 71 66 48 50

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 51

Ease of navigation 63 50 58 66 61 45 45

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 52

Documents 77 58 70 78 70 68 66

Clarity 77 61 69 78 73 70 67

Organization of information 79 60 73 83 74 71 69

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 76 52 66 76 67 64 64

Relevance to your areas of need 79 59 73 80 70 72 68

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 74 58 67 74 67 64 59

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 61

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 65

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 62

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 65

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 55

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- -- -- -- -- -- 51

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 68

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- 64

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- 61

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- 52

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- 61

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- 85

ACSI 65 50 61 64 58 52 58

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 69 58 65 68 67 58 65

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 64 46 59 61 51 49 54

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 61 44 57 61 54 48 55

Trust -- -- -- -- -- 57 80

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- 57 80

Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (Title II, 

Part A)

Provides assistance that enhances capacity to 

implement -- -- -- 66 68 59 63

Provides support that is responsive to my State’s needs 

to implement -- -- -- 65 67 59 67

Helps address implementation challenges -- -- 66 67 65 63 63

Provides information about key changes to requirements -- -- -- 74 73 66 67
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 335

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 6% 1 8% 2

Agree 35% 6 62% 16

Disagree 35% 6 15% 4

Strongly disagree 6% 1 4% 1

Does not apply 18% 3 12% 3

Number of Respondents 17 26

Job role

Project/State Director 94% 16 77% 20

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 19% 5

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 6% 1 4% 1

Number of Respondents 17 26

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 12% 3

Between 1 - 3 years 29% 5 46% 12

Between 4 - 10 years 41% 7 23% 6

More than 10 years 29% 5 19% 5

Number of Respondents 17 26

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 12 

months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 42% 11

Did not receive 0% 0 58% 15

Number of Respondents 0 26
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 336

Teacher and School Leader Incentive Grants

Score Table

2019 2020

Sample Size 19 14

ED Staff/Coordination 81 81

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 82 84

Responsiveness to your questions 82 81

Professionalism -- 87

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 78 79

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- 74

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 89 --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 81 87

Online Resources 70 88

Ease of finding materials online 71 88

Quality of content -- 91

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 70 87

Accuracy of search results -- 92

Ease of navigation 70 89

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- 94

Documents 79 83

Clarity 76 84

Organization of information 80 86

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 78 83

Relevance to your areas of need 80 84

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 78 81

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- 81

Clarity of reporting requirements -- 78

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- 89

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- 93

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- 77

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- 83

Your understanding of how ED uses your data -- 66

Technical Assistance -- 81

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- 82

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- 85

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- 82

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- 81

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- 88

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- 93

ACSI 79 75

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 84 81

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 76 71

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 75 71

Trust 85 73

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 85 73

Teacher and school leader incentive grants (ESEA IIB-1)

Assistance in improving program planning and 

implementation 72 87

Providing relevant information and ideas 72 90

Connecting you with other experts or practitioners 78 88

Relevant knowledge of program activities 73 83

Quality and helpfulness of communication 75 79
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 337

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 37% 7 57% 8

Agree 58% 11 29% 4

Disagree 5% 1 7% 1

Strongly disagree 0% 0 7% 1

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 19 14

Job role

Project/State Director 58% 11 64% 9

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 37% 7 14% 2

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 5% 1 21% 3

Number of Respondents 19 14

Length of time in role

Less than one year 5% 1 14% 2

Between 1 - 3 years 53% 10 50% 7

Between 4 - 10 years 37% 7 29% 4

More than 10 years 5% 1 7% 1

Number of Respondents 19 14

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 21% 3

Did not receive 0% 0 79% 11

Number of Respondents 0 14

TIFTSL Cohort

TIF 5 61% 11 23% 3

TSL 39% 7 0% 0

TSL 2019 Grant 0% 0 8% 1

TSL Cohort 1 0% 0 69% 9

Number of Respondents 18 13
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 338

Teacher Quality Partnership Program

Score Table

2020

Sample Size 21

ED Staff/Coordination 92

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 90

Responsiveness to your questions 91

Professionalism 96

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 88

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

92

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices --

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 94

Online Resources 83

Ease of finding materials online 83

Quality of content 84

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 84

Accuracy of search results 84

Ease of navigation 82

Look and feel/Visual appearance 83

Documents 86

Clarity 86

Organization of information 86

Sufficiency of detail to meet your program needs 84

Relevance to your areas of need 90

Comprehensiveness in addressing the scope of issues 

that you face 84

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements 84

Clarity of reporting requirements 86

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report 80

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically 88

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) 89

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project 87

Your understanding of how ED uses your data 72

Technical Assistance 83

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects 84

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management 86

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities 87

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program 68

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups 78

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project 70

ACSI 82

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 89

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 79

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 76

Trust 92

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 92

Teacher Quality Partnership Program

Accessibility and responsiveness of TQP program staff 90

Clarity of information provided by TQP program staff 88

Monitoring and reports sufficiently help program staff 

understand your project 92
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 339

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 67% 14

Agree 0% 0 19% 4

Disagree 0% 0 10% 2

Strongly disagree 0% 0 5% 1

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 21

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 71% 15

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 14% 3

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 14% 3

Number of Respondents 0 21

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 10% 2

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 38% 8

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 29% 6

More than 10 years 0% 0 24% 5

Number of Respondents 0 21

Received tech assistance from ED-Funded TA Provider in last 

12 months

Received tech assistance 0% 0 14% 3

Did not receive 0% 0 86% 18

Number of Respondents 0 21

TQP Cohort

1 0% 0 24% 5

2 0% 0 10% 2

3 0% 0 38% 8

4 0% 0 29% 6

Number of Respondents 0 21

Frequency of interacting with Division staff - TQP

Monthly 0% 0 48% 10

A few times a year 0% 0 52% 11

Number of Respondents 0 21
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 340

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Quality of customer service provided - TQP

Excellent 0% 0 81% 17

Very Good 0% 0 5% 1

Average 0% 0 10% 2

Fair 0% 0 5% 1

Number of Respondents 0 21
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 341

Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCU) – Part A

Score Table

2020

Sample Size 8

ED Staff/Coordination 85

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 83

Responsiveness to your questions 89

Professionalism 97

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 82

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

86

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 79

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 80

Online Resources 75

Ease of finding materials online 71

Quality of content 79

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 76

Accuracy of search results 71

Ease of navigation 73

Look and feel/Visual appearance 78

Information in Application Package 84

Program Purpose 81

Program Priorities 85

Selection Criteria 78

Review Process 76

Budget Information and Forms 79

Deadline for Submission 90

Dollar Limit on Awards 84

Page Limitation Instructions 86

Formatting Instructions 76

Program Contact 100

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements 69

Clarity of reporting requirements 68

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report 64

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically 82

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) 71

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project 69

Your understanding of how ED uses your data 61

Technical Assistance 68

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects 68

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project --

ACSI 90

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 94

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 88

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 88

Trust 94

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs 94
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 342

2020

Sample Size 8

Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCU)-

Part A program

Responsiveness to your questions 85

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures 87

Ability to resolve issues 85

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication 81

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues 89

Timeliness of the grant award notification 74

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation 86

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees 90

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed 85

Frequency of communication 88

Clarity of communication 90
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 343

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 38% 3

Agree 0% 0 63% 5

Disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Strongly disagree 0% 0 0% 0

Does not apply 0% 0 0% 0

Number of Respondents 0 8

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 63% 5

School Officer 0% 0 0% 0

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 25% 2

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 13% 1

Number of Respondents 0 8

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 0% 0

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 13% 1

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 50% 4

More than 10 years 0% 0 38% 3

Number of Respondents 0 8

Preferred method of communication - TCCU

Individual Email 0% 0 88% 7

Telephone 0% 0 13% 1

Number of Respondents 0 8
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 344

Upward Bound

Score Table

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 81 0 114 0 102 0 98

ED Staff/Coordination 77 -- 73 -- 77 -- 77

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies, 

and procedures 81 -- 79 -- 83 -- 84

Responsiveness to your questions 72 -- 67 -- 74 -- 72

Professionalism -- -- -- -- -- -- 84

Sufficiency of legal guidance in responses 76 -- 72 -- 78 -- 75

Communication about changes that may affect your 

program

-- -- -- -- -- -- 77

Consistency of responses with ED staff from different 

program offices 76 -- 69 -- 75 -- 72

Collaboration with other ED programs or offices in 

providing relevant services 84 -- 71 -- 77 -- 75

Online Resources 76 -- 76 -- 71 -- 75

Ease of finding materials online 77 -- 76 -- 72 -- 76

Quality of content -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Ability to accomplish what you want on the site 76 -- 77 -- 72 -- 75

Accuracy of search results -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Ease of navigation 76 -- 75 -- 70 -- 76

Look and feel/Visual appearance -- -- -- -- -- -- 70

Information in Application Package 87 -- 82 -- 81 -- 84

Program Purpose 88 -- 83 -- 84 -- 87

Program Priorities 86 -- 82 -- 82 -- 86

Selection Criteria 87 -- 81 -- 79 -- 85

Review Process 84 -- 79 -- 77 -- 83

Budget Information and Forms 86 -- 79 -- 80 -- 81

Deadline for Submission 89 -- 84 -- 86 -- 87

Dollar Limit on Awards 86 -- 83 -- 81 -- 84

Page Limitation Instructions 87 -- 83 -- 82 -- 84

Formatting Instructions 85 -- 81 -- 74 -- 81

Program Contact 88 -- 83 -- 83 -- 86

Grant Performance Reporting Requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

Clarity of reporting requirements -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Ease of obtaining data you are required to report -- -- -- -- -- -- 71

Ease of submitting report(s) electronically -- -- -- -- -- -- 83

Availability of assistance in completing your report(s) -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Usefulness of the data to help you improve your grant 

program/project -- -- -- -- -- -- 75

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

Technical Assistance -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

TA services provided in helping successfully implement 

grant programs/projects -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Enhancing staff skills needed for successful program 

management -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Using evidence-based practices in implementing 

program activities -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Assistance with developing resource materials for use in 

the program -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Creating opportunities to share best practices via 

learning groups -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ED-Funded TA Provider helpfulness in your learning to 

implement grant project -- -- -- -- -- -- --

ACSI 69 -- 69 -- 68 -- 73

How satisfied are you with ED’s products and services 74 -- 74 -- 75 -- 78

How well ED`s products and services meet expectations 66 -- 67 -- 65 -- 71

How well ED compares with ideal products and services 66 -- 65 -- 62 -- 71

Trust -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Level of trust in office to meet your organization`s needs -- -- -- -- -- -- 76
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 345

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Sample Size 81 0 114 0 102 0 98

Upward Bound

Responsiveness to your questions 71 -- 67 -- 72 -- 72

Knowledge of relevant legislation, regulations, policies 

and procedures 76 -- 75 -- 82 -- 80

Ability to resolve issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 74

Use of clear and concise written and verbal 

communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 76

Timely resolution of general programmatic and/or 

financial issues -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Timeliness of the grant award notification -- -- -- -- -- -- 65

Availability of funds with adequate time for 

implementation -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Transparency of how funds are distributed among 

grantees -- -- -- -- -- -- 80

Sufficiency of information provided to keep you informed -- -- -- -- -- -- 73

Frequency of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 69

Clarity of communication -- -- -- -- -- -- 76
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 346

Demographic Table

2019 2020

Percent Frequency Percent Frequency

Overall I am satisfied with the quality of EDs products and 

services

Strongly agree 0% 0 33% 32

Agree 0% 0 53% 52

Disagree 0% 0 12% 12

Strongly disagree 0% 0 1% 1

Does not apply 0% 0 1% 1

Number of Respondents 0 98

Job role

Project/State Director 0% 0 96% 94

School Officer 0% 0 1% 1

Grant Coordinator 0% 0 1% 1

Superintendent 0% 0 0% 0

Business Manager 0% 0 0% 0

Other 0% 0 2% 2

Number of Respondents 0 98

Length of time in role

Less than one year 0% 0 3% 3

Between 1 - 3 years 0% 0 30% 29

Between 4 - 10 years 0% 0 40% 39

More than 10 years 0% 0 28% 27

Number of Respondents 0 98

Preferred method of communication - UB

Individual Email 0% 0 88% 86

Blast/Distribution list email 0% 0 5% 5

Telephone 0% 0 5% 5

Webinar 0% 0 1% 1

Other 0% 0 1% 1

Number of Respondents 0 98
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 347

Appendix C: 

Verbatim Responses by Program
Final Report

2020 348

Department of Education Office of Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey 

21st Century Community Learning 

Centers 

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

More focus on the grant program.

please allow the search of '21cclc' to provide links to the Nita M. Lowey 21st Century Community 

Learning Centers page.

The website could be enhanced by including current updates and guidance. Much of the content has not 

been updated since 2018.

It is very intuitive to access information about Title IV Part B and the Critical Elements which has been 

helpful to send to folks during the COVID-19 pandemic who had questions about the program.

Provide PDFs of specific isolated documents so it is easier to search using PDF features. Searching the 

entire ESSA law for 21st CCLC info isn't helpful. Searching an online version of all of Title IV is, again, 

not targeted enough. I'm not sure if there will be another place to say it, so I'll say it here: Our ancient 

2003 Non-regulatory Guidance is almost useless. So much of the information is about the transition from 

USED administered to SEA administered. New Non-Reg Guidance, please!

Updated program guidance for 21st CCLC programs. Get rid of the 2003 guidance. The website itself is 

fine. Some of the information is outdated and not responsive to current events and questions.

the search tool should be a bit more accurate listing exact matches first and possible matches after the 

exact. I often get no results from a search and have to use many clicks to find what I need.

search feature

Easier to find GPRA information; slides and resources from SEA meetings, trainings - post sooner

Understanding that this is a federal website and that there are limits, adding highlights of promising 

practices from states and subgrantees with these funds would be helpful for both practitioners and 

visitors to better understand the benefits and outcomes of the programs. This is the public facing site 

representing our work and telling the story of the program might help us build additional support for the 

work.

Include recent documents, streamline approval process for 21stCCLC Team to get docs on website, 

include separate page views for types of TA resources (Summer Symposium speaker ppts, 21APR TA 

webinars, link to Y4Y resources, Program Team TA webinars (ex. nothing about the waiver on the 

website that I could find). Provide recordings and written scripts for ADA and get the webinars on the 

website right away.

The website font is small and the menus are not really prominent. There is regulatory information and 

not a lot of technical assistance that helps to guide the reader in viewing the regulatory information.

The current version of the website is a big improvement upon the previous one and the information that is 

available is generally accurate and useful. However, there is not enough content posted. For example the 

FAQ page has only 1 item on it and there is nothing about the current waiver, etc.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 349

More up to date materials

You have 2 sorts for programs- by grouping (which no one could know the organization of unless they 

were in your Department) and CFDA. CFDA sort is helpful to people who are familiar with those 

numbers. The other sort that would be helpful public-facing would be alpha order.

No suggestions at this time

Materials should be updated and search should be user friendly.

There is no improvement needed at this time. Please continue to provide content useful to the 21st 

CCLC program Thanks

does not apply

Include more information on FAQ responses or stances on issues relating to the 21st CCLC program. 

Much of what is shared with State Coordinators doesn't seem to have made it onto this website.

Not so bureaucratic looking and easier to search and find things.

Please include an A to Z tab to click on specific topics.

It can be difficult to navigate or search for specific information. It would be helpful if the law governing the 

program was more easily available and searchable. Recorded versions of trainings or presentations are 

not readily available.

Update information more often.

For the 21st CCLC Program, it would be nice to have a tool bar on the left-hand side of the page to click 

on different areas - laws & regulations (this would need a specific tool bar on the left-hand side when you 

are trying to find something or have a search box); SEA Trainings (PowerPoints, sample documents, 

etc.); an FAQ page; National Resources; and other supports. This would help grantees locate 

information faster and be more user friendly.

It is so vast yet difficult to locate specific pieces of information. Perhaps if there is a way to improve 

search engines?

It's a good redesign overall! I understand that OESE is a large office, but sometimes I will get buried on 

the site multiple clicks to find what I am looking for and cannot find my way back.

How grant reporting process could be improved?

Nothing, the department staff and vendor are exceptionally helpful and have listened to suggestions.

Subgrantees are always struggling with the 'Spring includes Fall' piece when they report to us prior to 

USDE. Could you have us report on 'School year' and Summer?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 350

Allow states to get detailed disaggregated reports of their own state's submitted information.

Continue to refine the automated part of 21APR.

Demand greater accountability from Tactile/21apr. The system has had and continues to have so many 

unnecessary problems. And their webinars often provide no new information. They do them to get 'credit' 

for doing them but the content is thin. Collapse Fall and Spring into one reporting window--especially 

because Fall data is entered 6-7 months after it completes. It's no longer useful at that point. Provide a 

national, student-level data entry option, so that each grantee and state does not have to use 2 or 3 

different programs to aggregate the data for 21apr.

more guidance on the new GPRA reporting would be helpful.

Give more advance notice about upcoming webinars for ease of scheduling.

Give states access to data entered into 21APR - by download or adding reporting features

Lack of further guidance on the new GPRA measures is a concern. Systems for reporting will take a 

substantial amount of time at the local and state level to put into place. Adding the issue of COVID-19 

during this period, it feels as though guidance has been delayed, but implementation is not able to be 

pushed back. Developing the needed reporting systems at the state-level is a heavy burden.

Excellent work from the contract team and contractor this year with the upheaval due to COVID. I 

appreciated the two cycles for reporting, even though I hoped I wouldn't need it. Turns out we did. 

Foresight and planning made the process clear and the extension to reporting timelines was very helpful.

The webinars have gotten better.

The biggest improvement would be reporting one time per year - or maybe twice (summer and spring). 

The fall report is simply unnecessary work.

States need to know exactly what data are needed for reporting as well as how and when ED will ask it to 

be reported so that appropriate data collection can be planned for and implemented. States need this 

information far in advance of when ED will be collecting these data to report to Congress. For a 

significant change like new GPRA measures, this information should be provided to States 2 years in 

advance, and at a minimum 1.5 years in advance since software programmers need time to develop the 

systems for data collection and States need time to develop procedures and SEA-level guidance on 

reporting.

The ability to use the Google platform would be helpful so documents can be easily shared in Google 

drives.

More clarity and user friendly

The grant reporting process does not need any improvements.

I don't like the change to entering data by semester. It doesn't make sense to me. I don't like the 

measures. New measure are a little better. I especially don't like the activity categories that must be 

chosen. They do not accurately capture what is being provided in 21st CCLC programs.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 351

does not apply

Having data more relevant to outcomes then process

The more that can be done to report aggregate data would be helpful. Reporting several data points by 

individual awards made by each state is a very time-consuming process and its not clear that 

disaggregated data is used for anything at the federal level.

They have done a good job over the years are making improvements to the process and website of 

21APR.

No suggestions at this time.

Provide clear, consistent definitions of the reporting elements. Particularly in the activity and staffing 

categories. Make data accessible to the users after it has been submitted for local or state use.

I think ongoing training around federal versus state decisions is needed.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

Staff has done a excellent job meeting the needs of our program.

ensuring that state education departments are sufficiently staffed to manage the subgrantees.

Technical assistance could be improved by enhancing the number of training opportunities for building 

the capacity of SEA staff members.

The technical assistance from the department has been timely, collegial and done with excellence. It 

helps a new director get a lot of information, identify where the decision point is and implement guidance 

with little hardship to the field as possible.

As I said earlier, Our ancient 2003 Non-regulatory Guidance is almost useless. So much of the 

information is about the transition from USED administered to SEA administered. New Non-Reg 

Guidance, please! Small point: I would have appreciated more information about 21C 

flexibility/allowability in the face of COVID. We basically got nothing until September. Even a 'Nothing 

has changed. Regular School Day restriction still applies. Safe/accessible buildings still applies' would 

have been helpful to receive instead of silence. We were all under a lot of national and local pressure to 

make changes. Also, strangely, I feel somewhat too much of meetings, emails, and conference time is 

given over to tangential topics (fraud detection, emergency plans) and would appreciate more time and 

resources pointed at our core needs. Despite the requests above: [REDACTED] and her team have 

instituted huge improvements in all aspects of 21st CCLC USED administration and Technical Support in 

comparison to the previous leadership. This cannot be understated. Particularly noticeable is putting 

things in writing, thoughtfully planned and implemented meetings, effective us of GEARS, not shaming 

grantees, professionalism. Some information is communicated slowly, but once the information comes, 

states (and their subgrantees) can actually have confidence that it was passed by diverse stakeholders, 

vetted and approved, accurate, and enduring.

more peer to peer opportunities could be offered virtually to help in this time of COVID right now. PLCs 

among SEAs would be a great way to keep connections strong.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 352

[REDACTED] and her team are doing an excellent job with TA. The SEA meetings are extremely 

beneficial--keep up the great work!

More support for best practices in grantmaking in government agencies; less training on implementing 

programs because SEA staff don't run programs; more sessions/discussions/guidance on evaluation 

activities at state level; opportunities for peer sharing that aren't over facilitated; EQUITY - we really never 

talk about this on any level and we should

The contract with Y4Y is our primary source of TA. The Department staff have increased their webinar 

presence on some issues in the past year. The quality of these opportunities is good, but more 

opportunities for learning communities about managing grant funds and competitive applications would 

always be welcome.

Include breakout rooms to discuss TA topics after a presentation so the field can better inform ED 

regarding questions, needs, topics that need more clarity.

The peer-to-peer sharing has increased greatly. Usually peers assist each other in implementation. It 

would be helpful to be able to receive more guidance and generation of ideas from USED. It is often left 

up to the states on interpretation and implementation; however, the sharing of ideas should be more 

freely given from the federal level.

Updated NRGs are the biggest need.

Just the timing of information needed by States. There is often not sufficient notice or information given

on guidance needed. Individual responsiveness to individual States is great, but the *program* level 

information given to *all* states is where the issue lies.

Continue to provide venues for states to share best practices, especially as we are navigating through 

virtual environments.

none

Sometimes the answers to questions are not specific but point towards regulations where the state office 

still has to figure out the solutions.

The 21st CCLC staff is great and readily available to provide support/guidance.

It would be beneficial to have Spanish speaking staff in the 21st CCLC program at he federal level.

more networking and peer sharing opporuntities

More timely communication about widespread concerns or 'hot button' topics. For example, COVID-19 

(while unprecedented) had states scrambling on their own to figure things out over the last 6-months. 

Only now has ED started to step into the conversation with resources and guidance.

N/A

No suggestions at this time; however, [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] are wonderful and accessible.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 353

Non-regulatory guidance and FAQs for the program area are critical. Lack of resources specific to the 

COVID-19 impact on programs and staff.

TA and support has greatly improved in the past three years, strong team lead and the GEARS team is 

excellent.

They are working really hard and it's appreciated. The response time has really improved. Not sure what 

else they could do. They do a great job and are friendly and approachable.

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

21st CCLC has provided several webinars to update information.

You for Youth

Youth for Youth: Online Professional Learning and Technical Assistance for 21st Century Community 

Learning Centers

- Youth for Youth: Online Professional Learning and Technical Assistance for 21st Century Community

Learning Centers

GEARS

GEARS

GEARS Y4Y

GEARS and Y4Y

GEARS Evaluation TA GEARS Fiscal TA WestEd - Community School Collaborative 

Leadership/Leveraging and Braiding Funds. Y4Y - Sub grantees had substantial training during the 

COVID-19 School Closure Period.

Several of these entities spoke at our Summer Meeting and/our conference. I feel that I have personally 

used GEARS and Y4Y the most, but learned more about REL this summer and intend to use more in the 

future.

Texas Comprehensive Center Y4Y

the Region 8 Comprehensive Center is working on a 2 year project that includes OST programs Y4Y is a 

great resource our state uses often.

webinars

Y4Y

Y4Y
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 354

Y4Y - new grantee orientation; project based learning webinar for governor's initiative on pollinator 

protection

Y4Y and GEARS.

Y4Y and REL via Ask a REL

Y4Y and the Regional Education Laboratories.

You for Youth

You for Youth

You for Youth

You for Youth

You for Youth, Regional Comprehensive Center

Youth for Youth

Youth for Youth

Youth for Youth

Youth for Youth

Youth for Youth

Youth for Youth GEARS

Youth for Youth: Online

Youth for Youth's professional tools used by my subgrantees.

What is your job role?

Asssistant State Superintendent

Director of Student Support and Well-being

SEA Staff
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 355

State Program Specialist - not the director, but with the resposibilities

State Staff

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA) Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

it's better now

The Department has taken concerted effort to make the website relevant, informative, and user-friendly. 

It is not as technical and easier to navigate.

Continue to allow states and other users to provide feedback about its website.

The way things are organized on the USDOE OCTAE pages can be inefficient to navigate. It does look 

like some improvements have been made in streamlining and organizing recently.

I think the website is very good. I've been in this field for decades and I'm able to find what I need on the 

site so I have no specific recommendations for improvement. Of course, any website can be improved 

and I think they are working on finding ways to make navigation easier for new people who aren't used to 

it.

I am not sure. Sometimes it is difficult to find things on the site, but this could be due to my lack of 

knowledge and experience using the site. I wouldn't change anything, it contains a wealth of information.

The Policy Guidance and Policy Memoranda is buried way down on the Laws and Guidance page. It's 

less buried on the State Grant Administration page, but still not strongly called out. If I'm not using a 

computer where I have the Laws and Guidance page bookmarked already, it always takes me a while to 

find the Policy Guidance and Policy Memoranda again. That page is really important for my daily work, so 

having it more visible/easy to link to would be helpful. Since there is a Correctional Education page, 

should there also be an IELCE page?

Update the look of the site and make it more intuitive and user friendly.

It is not intuitive. Not easy to navigate/find exactly what you need. The site has gotten more convoluted 

overtime. Can areas such as recent guidance not be buried in 3+ clicks?

Have not had the need to use the website.

Realize this is a federally funded site and not to be entertaining, but it looks stale and outdated.

The website is a valuable resource that I use often.

While I quite appreciate the AEFLA Resource Guide, I can never seem to find the OCTAE AEFLA 

Monitoring Tool. (Admittedly, this inability could be user-error.)
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 356

It's hard to find what you are looking for in DAEL. The search tends to go beyond DAEL. Improve ease of 

navigation. Fewer clicks. Better keyword searches.

The Department's website contains the needed information to help states and territories gather 

information, answer questions, and move eligible providers within their area of responsibility forward. I 

have no suggestions to improve the website.

If the website could explain how all the available resources fit together. For example, under 'WIOA 

Resources, Technical Assistance, and Events', the NRS website is not listed. A description of the 

different players would be helpful - i.e., what AIRS does. Have you considered providing links to 

resources that live on your website instead of emailing the documents? That way, I could find the 

documents more easily if I knew where they were housed on your website. I cannot even find a list of 

program memorandums with links. I also cannot find the document that tells us how to submit our reports 

for the previous program year.

Provide information specifically for State Directors and easy access to State Directors in all States. 

Finding this information is not easy.

some links are not there - the resource page no longer works; connecting TEGLs to OCTAE documents

I appreciate the new AEFLA site. I still have a difficult time finding OCTAE and joint OCTAE/DOL memos. 

I also wish that updated annual reporting requirements were posted clearly on the site.

More landing pages and fewer items on a page to minimize scrolling

Better organized and intuitive and easier to stay within and navigate the AEFLA landing pages.

N/A

It is great for an overview but not specifics, which we often need.

I think the new website is a great improvement.

Many of the areas are too text heavy and require significant digging to find what you need.

More focused and highlighted, simply. Not only citing regulations

NA

How grant reporting process could be improved?

I am very appreciative of how OCTAE share each state's performance with us. However, I am interested 

in knowing how you all use the information whether it's for funding, Congressional reporting, or for 

technical assistance to states. I would love to see more national data analytics of how states doing 

demographically by race, age, and gender in terms of MSGs. In addition, we should look at progress and 

retention by race, age, and gender and hold states accountable in ensuring that all students are 

progressing.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 357

Continue to ask states about their thoughts about the grant reporting process.

This is my first year completing the grant reporting for the state. So far, I've found the interface with the 

reporting portal to be pretty intuitive and straightforward, and OCTAE staff has been flexible and 

supportive.

I think they do a great job helping us understand reporting requirements and submit our reports. They've 

done a lot of training and are very responsive to questions. The only area I'm not as clear on is how the 

data is used once it's reported. I have a general idea but I think more clarity in that area could be helpful.

The reporting process is very good. When I have a question, I receive immediate assistance.

Continue to test the system and make changes as appropriate.

Stop changing it every year.

Not that you have any control, but the elements need to be more relevant to AE rather than DOL.

Increase the access to data required for the reporting process and expand options for reporting 

outcomes.

I would appreciate more clarity around Title II's reporting-obligations per the 'Effectiveness in Serving 

Employers' measure. Additionally, with the recently proposed revisions to NRS Table 4, I have concerns 

the program might unnecessarily complicate the collection and reporting processes; conversely, Title II's 

does not even have an explicit reporting-field which identifies how many HSEs were earned in a Program

Year by Reportables/Participants.

There has been improvements. Consistency in answering questions - data people and policy people.

The grant reporting process is clear. I have no recommendations to improve it.

The October 1 deadline is really tough to meet. If at all possible, moving this deadline to November 1 

would be a great help.

Consistency in the manner in which all States report. A common reporting system (MIS) for all States 

would make comparison of data across States fair.

fiscal reporting is always something that could use more training on

Trainings with OCTAE and AIR could be better framed using more plain language. One example of an 

especially challenging training was the National Training Institute training on the Statistical Adjustment 

Model by AIR. These trainings were not easy to understand and not engaging.

Share how the ED dept will use the data.

Better defined populations

We would have higher quality data if we reported in December rather than October. This would improve 

our post secondary transition and completion reporting.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 358

Financial and technical support to states for the data match process.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

Some states are still struggling with implementing an Integrated Education and Training program. A few 

states, who is either an I-BEST state or have participated in the Accelerating Opportunity program, are at 

an advantage compared to those states who have not participated in such a program. I believe there 

have been plenty of guidance provided, but some states are still having challenges. Similar to the the 

Teaching Skills that Matter pilot, I believe if OCTAE develops pilot cohorts for IET, this may help states 

effectively implement IET.

USDE OCTAE DAEL staff consistently provide high quality technical assistance.

I appreciate OCTAE's responsiveness in putting out webinars and memos to address questions that have 

come up with the pandemic. Facilitating peer-peer sharing does not seem to be a big component in my 

limited experience with OCTAE TA so far. This could be by design - not sure if NASDAE or vendors take 

the lead on this vs. Department staff.

I am very happy with the technical assistance and responsiveness. I have never had a question that 

wasn't addressed by the staff in the Department.

Create virtual training opportunities specific to the understanding of the federal guidelines and 

deliverables with examples of best practice implementation strategies.

Trainings geared specifically to where you are funded. For example: if state AE agency is housed in a 

College system differs from an AE agency housed in the Dept of Ed.

AEFLA staff has always been very helping in supporting local programs. Due to Covid 19, trainings have 

become virtual. I would recommend in the future that these virtual opportunities continue.

I would appreciate an explicit, detailed Fiscal Training [at which Agency-level program and fiscal staff 

could delve Restricted ICRs, Local Administrative Cost Limits, Allowable Costs, determining 

Leadership/Administration, Program Income, Obligations, draw-downs, G5, etc.].

na

I have no suggestions. Technical support provided to my state has been very good.

Not sure.

Provide clear and direct support for compliance related requirements under the law. Additionally, 

providing joint guidance that is clear across all partners. Improve definitions of regulations and 

requirements for States to meet the regulatory requirements.

peer-to-peer is more needed; best practices or connecting with developed guidance so that we aren't 

duplicating could be better

Allow more time in federal trainings and discussions for state-to-state sharing that is not open based on 

participant issues.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 359

The TA Staff does an excellent job.

more proactive peer-to-peer connections

More focused. More events with a tighter target audience and focused agenda.

LINCS is a great resource

More frequent meetings. Recording Shop Talk so we can go back and watch it if we miss it.

We need more peer to peer interaction.

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

American Institutes for Research National Reporting System contract

Regional Lab

LINCS - Content Standard Training AIR - Data system review

Neglected or Delinquent Education Technical Assistance Center

AIR

AIR Manhattan Strategies

AIR, LINCS, STAR

Attended AIR training

NRS through AIR

What is your job role?

State/Agency AEFLA Staff

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

AEFLA - 2020 - Q3.11. What can DAEL do over the next year to meet your state’s 

technical assistance/program improvement needs?

continue being very accessible and helpful.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 360

Continue providing relevant resources and technical assistance to help state's improve their 

adult education and literacy programs. Again, states can use more hands on guidance of IET.

Continue to ask states about their needs. Side bar: I accidently selected the wrong button a 

prior set of 3 questions. The rating for NRS should have been 3 - 10s instead of 3 - I don't 

know. thanks.

Continue to be responsive as the effects of the pandemic evolve - especially with regards to 

communication about accommodations in performance evaluation. I appreciate opportunities to 

learn from other states.

Continue to communicate regarding any changes or issues related to the pandemic.

Continue to do your great work! I appreciate all of the technical assistance and training that has 

been provided.

Ensure that TA contractors deeply understand the law, regs, guidance, especially when 

interacting with local grantee staff. More help with digital literacy and modeling of effective 

IELCE programs that exist in multiple organization types (community colleges, non-profits, 

libraries, etc.).

Expand training opportunities and virtual networking opportunities.

Give concrete examples so that other states may see good work in progress.

Guidance on how COVID will affect performance expectations.

Help understand what the impacts of COVID-19 pandemic will have on targets for serving 

learners, learning outcomes and maintenance of effort resulting from state and local budget 

cuts.

Including distance learning formats in all work going forward.

Is there a possibility to support a national Adult Numeracy Instruction [initiative] 2.0? How viable 

is a Digital Literacy/Distance Education initiative? When we most need those EveryoneOn 

resources in these rural, midwestern parts of the nation, that project does not even have a 

presence in our entire state. Perhaps this effort needs to be revisited.

na

Nothing that I can think of at the moment.

Offer trainings on IELCE programming without focusing only on IETs. There are other 

requirements of the program that are never discussed/explored.

Provide direct guidance and training that can be used to help the State remain compliance. 

Offer virtual meetings more often.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 361

some of the contracting work seems to limit the states access to services; NRS training feels a 

year behind the need for program performance; could use some step by step guidance 

documents for our grantees

Support/technical assistance on developing effective Infrastructure Funding Agreements (IFAs) 

could be improved. We could use clear examples of high quality IFA with troubleshooting ideas 

on common issues. In addition, technical assistance on Integrated Education and Training (IET) 

and Adult Career Pathway programming (ACPs) could be greater, including ready-made 

trainings and coaching on what is and is not technically an IET. I hope OCTAE works more with 

DOL on promoting IET/ACP work and providing technical assistance at the federal level.

We are in unchartered times with the pandemic -and we are all trying to figure out the issues 

with enrollment / instruction / virtual assessments and do not yet know the impact. For example, 

how will OCTAE respond to significant changes in overall state numbers that are a direct result 

of COVID. What does the fall out look like? What are the expectations? Will their be a fiscal 

outcome of decreased numbers or missing targets as a result of COVID? So many questions... 

:)

Alaska Native Education Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

no recommendations, looks good.

I am referring to the site where I access my grant documents: The log-in process seems a little extreme, 

having to get a code to log in. I would appreciate a simple log-in with password. When you live in rural 

Alaska where Internet is slow, requesting a code to my phone, can be cumbersome and as I recall on 

one or two occasions, it even timed out, and I did not receive the code within the required time.

I'm unsure, I don't refer myself to the site, I don't have enough information to provide improvement 

feedback.

I have not utilized it as much as I could have

I am new to the grant director position, so I have not had a lot of time to explore the website yet. The 

website seems easy enough to navigate to the G5 though.

Have a quick link button on the homepage that will take you to a current report that's due. Include a 

timeline of some sort that identifies upcoming reports that will be due and their due dates.

No suggestions.

The website appears not to have been updated since 2018. 

https://www2.ed.gov/programs/alaskanative/index.html

I am not quite sure. As I navigate it more this coming year I may have ideas.

The website is not intuitive to navigate, and it is hard to find the information you need.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 362

Currently, when one searched on google for Alaska Native Education Program, the number one listing is

to the old https://www2.ed.gov/programs/alaskanative/index.html site. The new site is great, and I would 

only recommend that the old site be redirected to the new one if possible to avoid confusion.

The information has not been up to date, useful. Please keep the website current.

there are still issues with searching that will take you to the old site rather than the new

The G5 website is clearly built and designed to meet the needs of the Federal project managers, and not 

the needs of the folks who are burdened with trying to find and enter information into it. The language 

used is bureaucratic language, fraught with codes and terms (i.e. 'ED program offices may also require 

recipients to use the ED 524B to submit their final performance reports. Project performance and budget 

expenditure reporting requirements are found in 34 CFR, 75.118 of the Education Department General 

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR)and 2 CFR 200.327 and 200.328 of the Uniform Administrative 

Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance)') What 

does that even mean? I doubt that Federal folks will ever overcome the hurdle of their own language 

barriers to design a website that has us in mind. But thanks for asking!

Our contact at the Department has been very responsive with inquiries which has helped tremendously 

with both our planning and our reporting. The website, though clunky, has worked for our program.

I have no recommendations at this time

I'm not familiar with the ANEP website resources. Though, I will make a point to look and see what 

resources are available. Thank you.

Everything is meeting our needs.

Updated information/forms/pdfs/docs that are on the site. Clearer and more details on forms/pages. Can 

be confusing at times.

We appreciate the improvements already made.

If the grant awards were listed by date is would be very helpful.

n/a

How grant reporting process could be improved?

At times, its unclear when to upload onto G5

The g5 system is inadequate. It is unreliable and we experienced many 'glitches' with it that impacted us 

negatively. This includes not being notified when reports were actually due.

I don't have any suggestions.

I was just assigned as Project Director, so the everything is still transitioning over and I have not needed 

to do any grant reporting yet.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 363

We mostly work from a word document file on our own computer, then we have to copy and paste all of 

the data and information into the online form. It would be nice to be able to upload our own documents, or 

if there was a way, upload our documents that will prefill into the reporting forms.

It is working well.

It would be helpful if the ANEP department were adequately staffed. Every grant is different, and in these 

circumstances, we have unique questions, and it would be so helpful to have a person to reach out to 

and provide guidance. The ANEP grant reporting process is fine.

I do not have any suggestions at this time.

G5 is extremely difficult to work with, regularly breaks, and is hard to access in AK because of bandwidth 

issues. A reporting site should not need that much bandwidth. Further, the system regularly breaks down 

while you are entering data, requiring multiple re-entries. Adding contributors to a report requires dozens 

of clicks and windows, with each 'submission' click putting the whole process at risk of breaking down 

and requiring the person to restart. I've spent an entire hour just trying to add someone to the system 

because it keeps breaking and I have to keep logging out and in. G5 is terrible.

G5 is a little difficult to use at times and often requires some staff assistance on completing/navigating 

the process.

G5 is clunky and buggy. We have consistently had to get technical assistance to get delegated folks into 

G5 to assist with reporting. The system is awkward, finicky. Also, character limits on the reporting 

sections are too restrictive. Grantees don't need to submit crazy amount of information, but we need 

room in the reporting format to actually submit coherent information.

upgrade the g5 system into something more user friendly. The ability to add tables to the data summary 

page would be helpful

It would be nice to receive some narrative feedback from the department on our reports. I am fairly new, 

so this may already be offered.

Improve accessing G5. I don't have specific recommendations. I will say I prefer the process that IMLS 

uses.

This is an unusual pandemic year. Thank you for your flexibility.

Clear directions/examples on the forms instead of having to look elsewhere for directions and clarity.

clearer deadlines and expectations

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

When reporting through G5, sometimes its not ready to upload.

I have no idea. We try never to ask for assistance after the initial experience with a budget amendment 

going in to year 2 if I remember correctly. It was extremely stressful trying to make changes that would 

meet our needs, no staff really wanted to approve what we were doing, I felt we were being intentionally 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 364

misunderstood so that they could just tell us no to the revision. It was a terrible process and we weren't 

even asking for anything complicated.

Opportunities to share methods used in meeting GPRA goals and objectives

I am new to the Program Director role and have not had to ask the Department staff for technical 

assistance yet. I look forward to their help in the future!

It is working well.

With the small staff and recent staff restructuring, there has not been opportunities to share successes 

and challenges with peers since 2018 or so. [REDACTED] is fantastic and does an excellent job, so 

responsive and approachable. The Covid-19 has not helped the situation.

Technical assistance seems to work just fine. I was very pleased with my interactions so far regarding 

tech support.

Peer to peer networking opportunities would be great.

I don't even think I have received opportunities for technical assistance support, other than maybe one 

webinar.

Pre-Covid, it was great to hear from other grantees about what they were doing and their projects. 

Perhaps we could bring that back virtually with the Department to bring grantees together and share how 

they are addressing COVID and adjusting programs to suit.

In the first two years of the grant we have never had a conversation with our program staff person. The 

Department staff for ANEP have been helpful the very few times we have absolutely needed questions 

answered, primarily via e-mail. We are fortunate in that we have strong staff and strong support 

resources as an organization. At this point we have just come to count on DOE ANEP to let us know 

when and what to report and how to report it and not much else.

I was onboarded to my program after the pandemic began, so I'm not sure how/if things are different this 

year. I haven't had the need for any assistance from the department yet, but I would welcome any 

opportunity for peer-to-peer learning.

no recommendations

more opportunities to share ideas, celebrations, challenges among grantees, especially considering the 

current issues surrounding the pandemic, school closures, remote learning etc.

More advanced reminders.

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

NYCP grants TA provider Millenium Group
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 365

What is your job role?

Director of State & Federal Programs

Education Director/ Grant Director

Executive Director of a nonprofit

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

ANE - 2020 - Q60.5g. Where and how did the technical assistance or support take place?

Select all that apply.

no cost extension

ANE - 2020 - Q60.9. What suggestions do you have for improving the annual performance 

report process?

at times the G5 uploading is not ready.

At times, I see different reports for the same year, and I am unsure of which link I need to use, 

but together with our Grants Administrator, we figure it out. It just does not seem as straight 

forward as it could be.

g5 needs to accommodate more information. The templates in there are basically worthless. I 

would suggest allowing grantees to upload their information into a larger database where 

pictures etc. can be posted and shared. We should be allowed to use all the required federal 

forms for the reports but just upload them to submit. The g5 system is ok for drawing down but 

not as a reporting module. It's a HUGE stressor and a headache. Even the people I talked to 

admitted it but yet no one can seem to do anything to get it to change. Take it seriously.

I don't have any suggestions. We appreciate the opportunity to provide support to our targeted 

students, and thank you for the privilege!

I have not had to go through the annual performance report process yet and would love to offer 

feedback once I do.

I mentioned before, but having a quick link access from the home page to go to the current 

report due. It takes a little bit of hunting to know where to find our reports.

It's working well.

None.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 366

Not sure.

Our log ins for reporting never work correctly.

Replace G5.

The only suggestion here is in improving the G5 site... It is sometimes glitchy and not very user 

friendly.

The reporting process is clunky and buggy. We have had to engage the folks at G5 multiple 

times just to get folks delegated to enter report information into the system and assigned to our 

grant. We have to go through the same process every time we need to do a delegation.

the system will time and you will lose data. ability to add tables would be helpful in the summary 

section.

Too many fields that require a response when there is no response to give. The 'one-size-fits-all' 

data collection has no application to my project, so I just enter zeroes everywhere.

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

A program 

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

N/A

Dept of Ed could be better about keeping the program website and the grants forecast websites up-todate. The OPE section of the grants forecast website is not updated at all as far as I can tell. This was 

not the case in the past. it would also be nice to have the Dept of Ed versions of rfps and other 

information on the ANNH website instead of just a link to the federal register. Dept of Ed produced 

versions of announcements and application documents, including eligibility instructions, are more through 

and easier to use.

Highlight recent OMB changes on the home page. Help to make the language more understandable. I 

don't have the time to read through hundreds of pages. An FAQ page?

Sample abstracts from successful grants would be helpful in considering ideas.

Not a user of the website.

No comments at this time.

Provide changes or updates at website homepage.

It would be helpful to have the name of the user appear on the page, once successfully logged in.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 367

Very good.

Grant search feature needs to be improved

Make visually more appealing and easier to navigate in finding information.

The font is hard to read and the size seems small.

Up-to-date information

How grant reporting process could be improved?

Increased information of how grant reporting data is used.

I have not received information and rely on others in my institution to guide me. As a new director, not 

being able to get training has been problematic.

One recent change that I do not understand is the requirement to report on all four potential focus areas, 

even if our particular grant project does not include activities in that category. The four focus areas are: 

Academic Quality, Student Services, Fiscal Stability and Institutional Management. In the past, we have 

only had to report on activities that are in our grant.

Automatically save or make it easier to save to avoid having reporters re-submit work

Not sure.

No comment

No comments at this time.

No comments at this time.

More user friendly in terms of noting what is required in certain boxes.

No improvement necessary.

Work with institutions in training for report. Also provide technical assistance and FAQs. Need to reword 

questions to match effective practices and data gathering methods

Technical workshops to better explain how the data collected is used.

Use a new technology for the submission platform. It is clunky. Add trainings.

Earlier information about submission deadlines, especially if they are to move earlier on a calendar year.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 368

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

Provide resources to grants/programs other than emails. When will virtual technical assistance 

workshops including peer to peer eval and discussions with other programs be happening?

Communication on what ways I can get assistance.

I want to take this opportunity to say how wonderfully helpful and responsive [REDACTED] and 

[REDACTED] are and how much I appreciate their aid and guidance.

Improved responses to requests

N/a. Technical Assistance and our Program Officers are excellent.

Our expectations are met; we understand some of the issues with time since we are 6 hours behind 

Washington, DC time.

Provide annual meeting among project directors.

Provide annual meeting with Project Directors to go over technical information and updates.

Very professional and timely responses.

Provide webinars. Be available to discuss questions.

More training/workshops provide by Department staff on a regular basis.

There was no grantee meeting this your due to COVID-19. That sort of meeting and sharing of ideas 

would be helpful.

I haven't heard of a listserv for this grant. I would find that very helpful. Also haven't had any trainings yet, 

but that's mainly due to Covid. There was supposed to be one earlier this year which was cancelled. I 

was expecting it be virtual. I also don't know anything about the peer-to-peer information sharing among 

grantees. It would be great to learn more about that as well.

Never had new PI training and in year 2 of the grant. Do not get responses to emails regarding questions 

on how to administer grant. Provide webinars to PIs to learn more about how reports are used, how to 

administer, best practices, etc. More communication!

What is your job role?

project director and grant coordinator

CUSTOM QUESTIONS
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 369

ANNH - Part A - 2020 - Q16.2. How can ANNH-Part A improve the usefulness of the 

technical assistance you receive?

Have greater access to the fiscal officer/program director for Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian 

TItle III grants.

Again, the people I have worked with at Dept of Ed have been great. I appreciate how 

knowledgeable, helpful and responsive [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] have been.

More timely responses to requests

na

No comment

Provide a yearly calendar of important dates related to ANNH programs, including performance 

report submissions.

Updates on the items that are allowable and not allowable to purchase using grant funds.

It is already great.

Excellent assistance.

Timely response to communication.

More timely responses.

Answer emails in a timely way

I have emailed my program officer and they rarely get back to me.

Provide it Provide resources for self-study when a grantee does not receive a response

ANNH - Part A - 2020 - Q16.5. What can the ANNH-Part A do to improve communication 

with you?

Have greater/increased access to live person to answer questions/inquiries

For a veteran grant director, the communication is probably sufficient. I need more differentiation 

as a new director.

The communication is fine, but getting back to that timing issue. We are on an academic year 

and having new funding begin Oct. 1 does not align with that. I understand that is the beginning 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 370

of the federal fiscal year, but our campus has grants from other federal sources with cycles that 

begin August 1.

More timely responses to requests

n/a

No comment

No comments at this time.

None at this time. Our program officer is second to none. Very professional and accessible.

N/A

Excellent communications.

More frequent communication.

More timely and frequency of communication and availability.

Answer emails in a timely way.

I feel I rarely hear from my program officer. Especially during this Covid crisis when I have 

questions about my grant. I have contacted them several times and I rarely get a response.

Reply to emails Provide links to resources and information Conduct trainings

ANNH - Part A - 2020 - Q16.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process 

and protocols associated with this grant competition?

Allowing for an extended deadline - when the grants are announced compared to the deadline 

does not allow for much planning/processing especially if guidelines/requirements are different 

year to year.

I am not involved in grant writing at this time.

I would like to see the grant forecast on the Dept of Ed website updated regularly.

More consistent timing of competitions each year. This past year, the grant competition for Part 

A was 4 months earlier than in previous years which forces those who regularly apply have to 

shift calendars, basically drop everything to submit the proposal on time. If the schedule 

changes give more notice to applicants.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 371

n/a

No comment

No comments at this time.

No comments at this time.

No suggestions for improvement

Overall process - outstanding.

Timely information, clear expectations, clear performance measures

Timely notification of competition.

American Overseas Research Centers program

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

The Department does an outstanding job running the American overseas centers competition. It also 

does an excellent job running the program There is nothing to improve

Easier, but still secure, access.

Terminology around reporting periods and coverage can be confusing.

It would be helpful to have a good and clear list that is easily accessible on what are the current Minority 

Serving Institutions. I have found this information very hard to find on the Departments website. I use 

instead the Rutgers University website.

I rarely visit the website. The website is mainly an overview of the program. This information is helpful to 

those who are new to the AORC program, but as a program grantee I am already familiar with this 

information.

How grant reporting process could be improved?

No need to change anything

All aspects went well For me when I was the one in our organization doing this. Now we have an 

executive director who does this work. I'm assuming that she will also get this survey anc fill it out for her 

years.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 372

I suppose that all the centers are different and it is difficult to create a template that we all easily fit -

sometimes our information does not smoothly match the reporting categories.

I wish had a good and definitive answer. I do not. Clearly any granting agency has its particular interests 

in certain information that it has determined it is important to capture. I respect that. And there is a move 

to try and specify and quantify goals and progress toward those goals. I understand that, too. I also 

struggle with how best to articulate meaningful goals and track meaningful progress toward those goals. 

Perhaps this needs further thinking and brainstorming.

I find the IFLE system rather difficult / clunky to use, and there are problems with using some browsers 

(Explorer or Edge).

There should be reminder sent out 3 weeks before the due date of the report. This will be very helpful, in 

case the report writer missed out the deadline. Limitation of the number of words in each category 

should be increased so more completed activities can be included in their respondent category. The 

figure data of Participant Profile should be in Excel file and provide more Optional Questions rather 

mandatory ones since this is very time consuming to enter the detail information of each participant in the 

online database while we have less time to complete the whole report. The figure

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

The service can't be improved upon

NA

I think we have good support.

In relation to the current grant under survey here, I found Dept. staff extremely helpful and responsive on 

technical questions, often within 24-36 hours of sending a request for feedback or information. In 

many cases, I am asking questions related to adjustments or changes in items for spending, travel 

requests etc. In many cases, I did feel that if there were more guidelines available or relevant FAQs, it 

might help reduce the need to ask questions directly to the program officer.. In particular, I find the 

TAR (travel request) process challenging - because of the time it takes to enter the information, and the 

need to get approval before booking travel for a project participant, the very specific information required 

in the request, and the very narrow time window for booking. If there was a way to make this process a 

bit easier, that would be great.

It would be helpful to have regular meetings of the grantees to learn about their activities and programs 

and compare and potentially share administrative practices. These meetings might be held online on a 

regular basis and have a theme or highlighted center. It might also be helpful to find more ways to 

highlight and celebrate the work of the AORCs as supported by this grant.

What is your job role?

Executive director

Executive officer (Treasurer) of an AORC.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 373

Head of Programs

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

AORC - 2020 - Q30.2. How can American Overseas Research Centers improve the 

usefulness of the technical assistance you receive?

[REDACTED] does an outstanding job. She is responsive and does a great job answerIng 

questions

It has been a great pleasure to be working with [REDACTED]. She's highly experienced and 

knowledgeable Director and as one of the DoE grantees, we are grateful for all the support 

provided to us.

It is always great to work with AORC program staff.

It's already good.

The only area I can think of relate to the timing of the programs and updates related to new 

grants or programs, or funding approvals year on year. Having earlier grant deadlines, if at all 

possible, and a longer period between the announcement of the grant award and the start date 

could help for planning purposes. I am aware that there were delays to the announcement of 

upcoming grants in 2020, as well as other changes, which led to considerable challenges for 

planning and staffing at our institution. I am aware that this is connected to the challenges of the

2020 Pandemic, but I am also aware it has been an issue in the past also (though not to this 

extent).

AORC - 2020 - Q30.5. What can American Overseas Research Centers do to improve 

communication with you?

The communication was excellent The only concern is the amount of time to get the results of 

the competition through the department review process

It is good to know about any developments with the AORC program goals and objectives.

Communication is already excellent.

I do want to personally thank [REDACTED] for her excellent service and support and 

responsiveness to questions. She is really wonderful. Thank you [REDACTED]! I don't have 

any specific communication issues related to our most recent grant (2016-2020), but we have 

experienced delays in gaining feedback on our new/upcoming grant. Having a response to this 

aspect would be helpful. Also, perhaps some updates or tips that can be shared from time to 

time? Perhaps some common FAQs or issues can be communicated to all AORC grantees, 

which could help us to resolve common issues? We have tended to have updates 

communicated through CAORC, rather than through DoE. Perhaps the occasional webinar 

coordinated by DoE in which we are able to ask questions about a program, or offer feedback in 

how to improve a program, or offer ideas for new directions or needs could be beneficial.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 374

Periodic meetings of the key Dept of Ed staff and AORC staff to discuss the program and 

outcomes. Share information across the AORCs.

Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Institutions 

ProgramStr 

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I gave an 8 on the website's visual feel because it offers very complete information. However, it also 

looks very dense to the eye. I think it can be improved if the visual info is limited to a few major 

categories, then have more detailed links under those. That would make it not just more visually 

appealing to me but also more visually engaging. One website that I have found very engaging and 

visually appealing for me is the website of Asian Americans Advancing Justice (https://advancingjusticeaajc.org). Its web page is neither too heavy nor too 'thin.' I just wanted to cite that as a possible 

example/model for your website improvement.

It's text heavy and could improve by organizing information into digestible content. Emphasize key links 

that are more visually impactful- like 'Federal Register' (for access to 'active' AANAPISI Part A & F grant 

competition), historical background (legislation & changes to legislation), Grantees (past and present, 

including abstract), Relevant Research (repository of AANAPISI-focused scholarship and reports). What I 

mention in parenthesis could be what is used as subtext when hovering over the section title.

The website should contain more interactive features (e.g., search engine, summary of grantees/projects) 

and generally pay more attention to user experience.

Provide current information, up-to-date funded grantees and abstracts, more FAQ's related to interpreting 

EDGAR (difficult to find clear answers/guidance in interpreting the regs), more timely updates regarding 

future competitions, ADVANCE posting of application reporting deadlines and due dates.

A more appealing and welcoming design would be very nice. It is fine for general information, but 

challenging for detailed information. It is just easier to directly contact our Program Officer.

The website can be approved by addressing FAQs and providing examples in terms of timeline for 

reporting, examples of APRs, including more in-depth guides on drawdowns, utilizing grant websites, 

beginning and ending grants, etc. It would also be appreciated if there was a better, streamlined way of 

how to get questions answered, whether it would be through contact with other grantees, to the grants 

officer, or to another department.

List immediately recent awardees

I like the multiple confirmations to log in and the need to change passwords regularly. I don't have any 

suggested improvements.

N/A

N/A

Inclusion/Updated list of current awardees Updated funding status and legislation More direct links to all 

regulations More links to resources like APAHE
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 375

Have projected timeline for 2021 applications or releases. Include list of successfully funded programs 

and their abstracts.

It could update the design of the website to make it more visually appealing and user-friendly.

Would love to see an organized list of all current and past AANAPISI grantees with project abstracts. 

Current list is hard to navigate with info within Word docs and info only goes back to 2012.

It seems that every year there is always an update to the APR. Therefore, having a consistent date for 

the posting the APR would be helpful.

It needs to be updated and made more user friendly. It should also have Spanish and other language 

interpretation.

Create a mobile app and update to a more modern look and functionality

please add videos, links, colors and past success stories and programming that is inclusive of Asian 

American and Native Pacific Islanders. If audio links are an issue since the DOE sites do present a 

general outward facing appearances...at least upload photos to illustrates the targeted community that

the AANAPISI programs represent.

How grant reporting process could be improved?

For the past three years (2017, 2018, 2019), the timeline between the date when the APR website is 

opened up to the deadline of submission has always been different. If there is more regularity and 

consistency in the APR reporting period, that would help a lot. Project Directors will be able to better 

schedule their time and collaborate more efficiently with other work areas in their institutions to get data 

needed for the APR in a more timely manner. I do want to say that it has been helpful not to set the 

deadline of the APR to 12/31 every year, since it is very difficult for any Project Direct to contact anyone 

in their institution during the holidays. If I may, I would like to suggest that the ED consider setting the 

regular deadline to at least between Jan 31-Feb15 every year. This may be particularly important this 

time, when we all continue to be impacted by the pandemic. Many work areas continue to be impacted 

and in flux.

It has gotten better; I would say to continue creating opportunity for each grantee's individualized 

programming efforts to demonstrate their outcomes and progress within the reporting framework.

Moving the deadline to the summer or late summer will allow institutions to better use the information 

gathered to improve programming for the new academic year/grant year.

The reporting system keeps changing. Some improvements have been made, but by the time the 

reporting system has opened, I have collected and organized data based on what I THOUGHT was going 

to be how I would need to input it. When the questions that will be asked are not known until the reporting 

system opens, it is not helpful in collecting data and organizing expense data throughout the year in a 

way that makes it easy to report. The paperwork burden doesn't really improve when the tracking for 

reporting purposes is constantly changing without advance notice into the reporting year.

Ensure future applications are open 90 days, with the deadline in April. An April deadline syncs with 

the regular academic calendar of colleges and universities. Announce and post the future AANAPISI 

grant announcement at a consistent and regular time, preferably in February. This timeframe will ensure 

colleges and universities to anticipate and prepare for future AANAPISI applications Past applications 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 376

were announced at unpredictable times of the year and resulted in several institutions being unable to 

apply. Be notified of AANAPISI awards by July. By announcing awards by July, colleges and 

universities can better plan their fiscal year budgets and prepare for the start of the academic term in 

August.

To improve the grant reporting process, having a timeline ahead of time would be appreciated. Also, 

knowing well ahead of time would give better preparation. We also need better communication. We are in 

a situation now where the grant funding has ended, but there is no word or example of a program-end 

report despite not having any new funding to keep vital staff on. The guides are helpful, but perhaps 

online information sessions could be beneficial. Having examples of grant reports or what other 

successful colleges have submitted would be helpful.

The tech folks on the annual report should be available by phone.

For APR, no place to include external evaluator's evaluation for previous year (this may not be a 

requirement so just a thought this might be a way to include their feedback.

N/A

Allow a minimum of 3 months before reports are due.

Continue opportunities to engage in Q&A especially in this virtual setting. A case study approach to 

reporting would also be great.

Release the application earlier so we have a longer time to prepare the application to the highest quality 

standard possible. Have a longer window of time to submit the application. If not the entire application, 

release the competitive priorities at least earlier so institutions can adequately and thoughtfully prepare a 

response to address those priorities. Thanks so much for being open to feedback.

The reporting system isn't terrible, but it can be a bit cumbersome with so many parts and sub-parts. 

Some of the sub-parts can't be easily accessed until higher levels of the report are completed. So 

sometimes it's hard to understand the full scope of the requirements until we're actually entering the 

report information. It does help that DOE usually provides a PDF showing all or most of the parts of the 

reporting system.

It would be helpful to receive information about how our APR report is used and to receive feedback on 

our reporting. The reporting structure of the APR does not match the AANAPISI program proposal's focus 

on a logic model. The data required for reporting is not directly connected. The university data for some 

sections of the APR are not directly relevant to the grant activities many grants are engaged in.

The grant reporting deadlines are not clear and seem to shift. As grantees, we need hard deadlines set 

early in advance.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

I don't think I have any at this point. My experience has been consistently positive. I feel well supported, 

actually. I feel that every time I had a question or concern, I instantly got a very timely reply.

I don't have any suggestions at this time given. The webinars have been helpful.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 377

Provide more opportunities to learn from other programs, experts in the field via conferences, trainings, 

webinars, etc.

I have managed Department of Ed, Title III grants for 20 years. [REDACTED] is the most competent and 

engaged program officer I have ever worked with! I have been thankful for our program to have had him 

as our program officer from our beginnings - and thankful that he was returned to us after his assignment 

elsewhere. The strength and success of the AANAPISI program is, in my opinion, largely due to having 

his support and leadership to ensure we know what we need to do as directors, and counseled when we 

are off track. [REDACTED] is RESPONSIVE to email inquiries! It's a constant surprise to me to have 

such a responsive program officer - generally the same day! The non-responsiveness of other program 

officers - even with the 30 day turnaround response time which is Ed policy - meant I needed to reword 

my requests as 'approval for this request if a response is not received within the 30 day response time' 

window. [REDACTED] provides guidance through webinars, is present at meetings where AANAPISI 

directors/leaders convene to provide updates and guidance, which is appreciated because we all hear 

and benefit from hearing the same information, questions raised, and responses to those questions, 

rather than our individual interpretations from one another. Thank you for supporting the AANAPISI 

Program through [REDACTED] as our senior program officer. I believe the AANAPISI Program is a 

strong collaborative working together to respond to the intent of the funding, improve persistence and 

graduation rates, and add to the higher education resources our the nation.

Broad general webinars cover a lot of material very quickly and it is so easy to get lost. In the past there 

were meetings in Washington DC with several breakout sessions that directors can pick and choose what 

they need the most. I remember going to one of the sessions twice because it was interesting to me and 

I wanted more detail. Multiple detailed sessions can be done virtually.

The Department staff does a good job in terms of turnaround time to answer questions and hosting 

sessions at conferences. There can be more information sessions, a better effort to connect programs to 

other resources or to other grantees, and have examples of best grantee practices. Knowing that 

programs have a timeline, there can be more effort to reach out to those programs that are ending and 

offer assistance on transitioning and closing out aspects of the grant, including how/when to send a no 

cost extension without having to be asked.

I appreciated our site visit with our project officer. He helped us clarify what we could do to improve what 

we were doing. If there was capacity, I would appreciate an annual site visit.

N/A

NA

Updates on any changes to the APR reporting process, format, etc.

We haven't used any formal program technical assistance from DOE.

Consistency of information in the program. Sometimes we receive contradictory information across years 

in the program from one staff member to another. The current program officer is clear but a former 

program officer had given wrong information before. Also, the formatting requirements for the grant 

proposal was different in the technical assistance webinar than in the federal register.

More clarity around LAAs for the grant.

our program officer is terrific.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 378

What is your job role?

Principal Investigator

AANAPISI Program Director

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

AANAPISI - 2020 - Q22.2. How can AANAPISI improve the usefulness of the technical 

assistance you receive?

I've been very happy with the timely technical assistance that I have always received from our 

Program Officer. [REDACTED] is excellent -- always responds within 1 minute, always brief and 

effective in his communication. The communication of the ED around certain things, however, 

is not at all stellar. Now I'm not sure if this is the appropriate space for this but I fell obliged to 

say something. I was very unhappy with the timeline for the submission of the most recent 

AANAPISI Part A grant application. Our institution did not apply for that grant because the 

timeline was just a month, roughly. In contrast, the timeline for the Title V HSI grant competition 

was longer. It would help if the timeline for the application is made the same for both types of

grant competitions. Second, although our college did not apply for the most recent AANAPISI 

Part A grant, I felt a lot of empathy for our other peer institutions that applied and received a lot 

of confusing, mixed messages. In August, I learned that some of our peer institutions that 

applied were rejected. Then just last week, I learned that those same colleges were aware the 

Part A grant. That sent many of my colleagues through a rollercoaster ride. That misstep in 

communication was definitely not okay and I hope that does not have to happen again in the 

future. I would hate to have to be in the same situation when the Part F competition is rolled out 

next year. I also have not been made aware of any transparent communication explaining 

contradictory messages around the most recent Part A grant winners. I think the ED can 

certainly do much better in this area.

I have received useful assistance in times that I've sought help.

Provide a searchable website of resources.

My responses the the questions regarding satisfaction with programs and services may have 

been a misinterpretation of the question. THE PROGRAMS AND SERVICES OFFERED BY 

COLLEGE CAMPUSES HAS BEEN EXCELLENT, and our learning of what is effective excellent 

due to the sharing among AANAPISI institutions. My response to PROGRAMS AND 

SERVICES OFFERED BY THE LEGISLATION HAS BEEN DISAPPOINTING as the awards 

keep shrinking in dollar amount which is difficult for grantees with high costs. In addition, as the 

AANAPISI program has matured, and getting campuses to recognize the internal barrier created 

by the persistence of the Model Minority Myth and lack of disaggregated data. As we are 

making in-roads, the funding is decreasing. I would like to see points for institutionalization, to 

get institutional commitment to make the changes necessary to sustain successful 

programming.

I find this survey very confusing. Does technical assistance to includes interaction with the 

Program Officer? If so, I am very satisfied. [REDACTED] is an excellent Program Officer. If 

you are referring only to the website, application process, IT support, I would say it is a 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 379

challenge navigating through these areas. Honestly, I just rely on my experience as a project 

director and contacting the Program Officer far more than anything on the web.

AANAPISI can offer more assistance with communicating ideal timelines for grant reporting, 

checking in with programs, especially as they near program-end-dates, hosting online sessions 

for asking questions or showing examples of reporting/best practices, connecting AANAPISI 

programs, and follow-up.

The annual report template is so confusing. There is a 1-800 number and email we are 

supposed to reach out when we experience issues but i have found them not so useful.

N/A

N/A

NA

Consistency in evaluation of grant proposals. Receiving responses to suggestions for 

improvement that have been submitted through the APR process each year.

Technical assistance is great and helpful

AANAPISI - 2020 - Q22.5. What can the AANAPISI do to improve communication with 

you?

Due to the pandemic, the ED had to postpone its Project Directors Workshop usually held in 

June. I'm wondering if COVID-19-related adjustments have been made to re-design this 

workshop. I haven't received communication about it since June 2020. I hope that there is a 

plan to design web-based conferences for Project Directors (both new and continuing).

Communication has been efficient, responsive, clear and helpful.

Provide more information about legislative actions relevant to AANAPISI funding/programs (e.g., 

the inclusion of AANAPISI in the CARES Act), updates/lists of AANAPISI grantees (for 

networking, mutual assistance, etc), and general communication about best/innovative practices 

from AANAPISI grantees.

Timely communication. By that I mean, more than a 30 day or less notice of competition 

(especially since it was uncommonly early in 2020 and before the APR was due. Supposedly 

the early competition was to ensure early notification of awards. One of my peer campuses did 

not have confirmation until September. Full copy/process mapping of the APR. What is the 

decision tree so we can gather our information ahead of time and be prepared based on the 

questions that come up. I would have gathered additional data or put together more detailed 

responses if I knew the logic model based on responses. This would also inform me of where I 

might fit in data/information I believe to be pertinent and want to share, but find no relevant APR 

question in which to include it. It might be there - just buried under a response to another 

question I didn't know would trigger it.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 380

The Program Officer is very accessible and that is the best thing. There was a short time when 

we had another Program Officer and it was very difficult. The individual who is the Program 

Officer makes all the difference in the world.

Typically, AANAPISI communication occurs when there is big news from the Department of 

Education or an upcoming report coming up, but our program can use more frequent 

communication on best practices, especially as the program's funding ends. Program 

suggestions on transition, annual performance reporting, connecting to other programs, and 

follow-up would be appreciated.

The award notification could be done so much earlier. It seems to be like a week before the start 

date. Also list all awardees on the webpage so we can network and collaborate early.

quarterly to bi-annual meetings of grantees to share best practices and improve our services

N/A

N/A

Continue the relevant updates via newsletters

Send out notification of anticipated timeline for next year, if applications are anticipated to be 

opened for Part A or Part F, potentially what month or range of months when information about 

applications would be released, etc.

Grant awardees should be notified with enough time to plan for implementation of the new 

school year, not for the federal fiscal year. The timeline of communication is not dependable. 

The notifications for the APR system opening and when the deadline is is usually sufficient even 

if the due date changes from year to year. There is at least a month's notice before the system 

opens and then around 90 days to complete the APR. However, the communication and amount 

of time to prepare a grant proposal is vastly different each time and hinders schools from being 

able to prepare. It is not sufficient to communicate about a grant cycle opening with only one 

week's notice and then giving less than 30 days to prepare a grant proposal.

Answer the few questions we have with more thoroughness for better clarity.

AANAPISI - 2020 - Q22.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your 

program specialist?

Very helpful when addressing a group - at meetings or convenings. We are still relatively new 

and learning - from each other and our program officer.

AANAPISI - 2020 - Q22.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process and 

protocols associated with this grant competition?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 381

1. Give institutions at least 6-8 weeks to submit grant proposals 2. Implement a more consistent

timeline for APR submissions, and consider a deadline of between Jan. 30-Feb 15 to give

project directors ample time to work with different officers at their college on the data pulls that

need to be done 3. Improve communication from the ED -- be consistent, avoid confusing

messages on who won or did not win a grant. Our Program Officer has been excellent. I think

the problem lies with the administrative leaders above our program officer.

1.Publish the competition announcement early and widely. 2. 30-60 day application period 3.

Earlier notification of awardees to better align with college fiscal year (July 1-June 30). 4. If not

#3 and keep grant period from Oct 1-Sept 30, then ensure awardees are officially notified no

later than August. 5. AANAPISIs can't advocate on the hill. But, comparing allocation of

funding across different MSIs, AANAPISI's are woefully underfunded considering the number of

eligible institutions who are able to compete. They are funded at the lowest per capita.

Be more clear about: how the application can be accessed, selection criteria for reviewers of the 

applications, process for the recruitment of reviewers, and notification timeline. Be more 

mindful of the deadline of the application (e.g., should not occur close to the progress report 

deadline).

Earlier notification of the opening and due date. Amount of the competition and preference 

priorities and any changes in what is expected in putting together a strong proposal. To gain 

participation and buy in from the campus, we need time to work with the different groups on 

campus. Scheduling those meetings is a challenge, so the more notice we have of the rules 

and expectations of a successful application, the more time we have to put together an 

excellent, collaborative application we can submit without the long hours and stress 

management they often require.

Ensure future applications are open 90 days, with the deadline in April. An April deadline syncs 

with the regular academic calendar of colleges and universities. We were provided less than 

30 days for the last application, which reduces the quality of each application. We get more 

time to do the Annual Progress Report than we get to write a detailed and quality grant 

proposal. Announce and post the future AANAPISI grant announcement at a consistent and 

regular time, preferably in February. This timeframe will ensure colleges and universities to 

anticipate and prepare for future AANAPISI applications. Past applications were announced at 

unpredictable times of the year and resulted in several institutions being unable to apply. It 

would be good if we get notified of AANAPISI awards by July. By announcing awards by July, 

colleges and universities can better plan their fiscal year budgets and prepare for the start of the 

academic term in August . AANAPISIs get far less funding that other MSIs!

First and foremost, there needs to be more time to submit the grant application. Schools were 

notified just a couple months before the competition started, which was not enough time to 

prepare a sufficient application. Additionally, more webinars or assistance on what a successful 

grant application looks like would be helpful. The current system allows for inequities due to 4-

year universities or those that have grant writing positions to have an edge on new or 2-year 

schools. Receiving feedback on the grant competition application is useful, but there was a 

disconnect between the rubric/guidelines and points being marked down on the applications due 

to reviewer bias. Additionally, even having a grant competition means that some 

colleges/universities lose out, while others benefit - there needs to be more funding in the 

system to allow for less of a competition of funding, and better ways to support as many 

programs as possible. Instead of focusing on a grant competition, perhaps there can be ways to 

facilitate advocating for more funding, or other options to receive funding for after the awards. 

That would show that there is more of a commitment to help AANAPISI institutions even if they 

do not receive grant funding.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 382

Having 60 days or more to complete grant applications would be ideal. Having a more 

standardized timeline would be great as well so that we could know when the competition would 

open and when the results would be announced.

I would suggest letting folks know they have been awarded earlier.. a month before would be 

ideal.

If possible make the grant approvals at least 6 months before they begin, being notified after 

school year starts you received a grant which begins in less than 2 months results in wasted 

resources the first year as you don't have the staff hired and in place to run a program. First 

year ends up becoming a pilot year

N/A

N/A

NA

Publish timeline (anticipated, subject to change a year in advance) Publish competitive priorities 

in advance of application release More time to complete application after release Shorten time 

to find out if awarded or not to improve planning and positioning. Thanks!

The proposal preparation webinar was very good. There could be more time given between the 

release of the RFA and the application deadline.

There should be at least 90 days for applicants to complete a grant proposal and more 

advanced notice for when the funding cycle will open. It would be helpful to also have a set time 

of the year when funding cycles will open. For AANAPISI, it has been due in August certain 

years, then May, then February. The notification process has also ranged from Oct. 1st with an 

Oct. 1st start date! to August or September. It would be helpful to send notifications by July if 

possible so schools can plan. The evaluators of grant applications should be more consistently 

trained. There should be more care taken to ensure that there are no inconsistencies in 

information being communicated.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 383

Assistance for Arts Education Development and Dissemination 

Program 

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

It's hard to know when the website was last updated with new information. Over the past few years, the 

site has not been updated regularly which makes me question the current content that is posted and if it 

is still accurate.

Maybe make it easier to navigate by adding, for example, more visuals (like logos to programs instead of 

text).

I would appreciate a calendar readily accessible with report due dates and other important dates for 

grantees, as well as easy access to reporting forms. Overall, though, the website is beautiful!

NA

The information always appears to be out of date and I wish it included reporting guidance.

How grant reporting process could be improved?

The data portion is sometimes confusing.

The report requires a significant amount of data and narrative around the work that is being done to carry 

out the program and achieve the project-specific performance measures. Yet, all that really seems to 

matter is the budgetary reporting and absolute priority (ELA/math scores; # of curricular materials 

created) reporting. We have never received feedback on the work we are completing to achieve our 

project's performance measures or to disseminate our work which makes me think that these topics are 

not important and spending many hours writing a thorough narrative is not a good use of time. I 

understand that reporting is about compliance but there could be an increase in the amount of attention 

that is given to programmatic *quality.* Eg: We report on the number of curricular materials we create but 

there are no requirements for the content of these materials and we never have to submit them for 

review.

I think the Department does a great job and our liaison has always been very supportive and responsive. 

I feel very supportive when communicating with her.

Better reminders / lead time for reporting. Easier access to forms and more user friendly forms.

NA

We receive the APR deadlines with little time to prepare (4 weeks). The webinars are so focused on the 

big data pieces and not about narratives. It would be wonderful to have some exemplars.

Our organization collaborates with multiple partners in completing the DOE grant reports. We typically 

use a document from Google Team Drive that we share with the numerous partners so those 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 384

participating can answer relevant questions that require a shared responses. It would be wonderful to 

have a grant reporting platform that would eliminate the need to cut and paste on the front and back end 

of these reports. With the current system, we are cutting and pasting into Google with the blank questions 

then again at the end of the process we cut and past the answers back into the reports word doc that we 

submit as our final report.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

Greater interaction between grantees and the staff. Most of the interaction and opportunities for 

professional development and sharing of ideas/concerns is only around the report.

I think there could be more opportunities available. Of course Department staff is stretched thin and time 

is limited so I understand there are limitations. The webinar provided on distance learning was very 

helpful and it was nice to connect with fellow grantees at the annual conference. I think these types of 

events can be taken to the next level with minimal effort by establishing working groups on specific topics 

like curriculum development, teacher training, assessment, and dissemination.

I think we receive an immense amount of assistance. Maybe it would be good to facilitate a Zoom based 

update session with all grantees once a year.

I'm not aware of what is provided, so start there.

More sample resources for program implementation.

NA

They could help much much earlier in the grant and support in creating measures well before any work 

begins.

Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education State Directors

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

The responsiveness of the Department has been excellent. As we walk through Perkins changes and 

COVID I sometimes want more concrete answers where they are not yet available. That's not the fault of 

the Department but reflects on current life.

Continue to make things easily accessible and increase the ability for a targeted search to be done for 

specific information.

Less text, more infographics, drop down menus on pages for specific items and a FAQ section for each 

area

n/a

Nothing specific comes to mind.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 385

I am a new director so I am still learning about the scope of the website and its content.

It's not the department that needs to change; I need to become more tech literate/savvy!

How grant reporting process could be improved?

not sure. Ask me after this CAR.

have more training (webinars) on the reporting process.

Some of the data is not easily obtained but we understand why it is being requested.

Send the questions that will be found in the narrative or a copy of the report we will be required to 

complete out before October 1st

Supporting more conversations about what the data mean and what program should do to directly 

influence them. The timeline between data collection and reporting is so long that it is difficult to make 

meaningful adjustments.

Nothing specific comes to mind

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

when submitting a question, sometimes the actual law is the response, when it may be more helpful on 

flushing out ideas to implement program/service, rather than just reiterating the actual language of the 

law.

Continue to offer opportunities for peer to peer sharing. You all are doing an awesome job.

A quarterly document of what is new and innovative going on e in different states, fresh ideas and or 

resources, more opportunities to get state director's together

I could not ask more from the Department staff. They are excellent. I love working with them.

Nothing, every time I have needed assistance the staff has been INCREDIBLY helpful. [REDACTED], 

[REDACTED] and [REDACTED] have all gone above and beyond for our state many times!

Providing instruction for how to 'convert' legalese into usable language for the field. We 've been 

instructed to change 'layman's terms' instructions back into legalese (by OCTAE staff) and quote the Act 

instead of using layman's terms. While this might 'check the box' it does not improve program if the 

educators in the field cannot decipher the Act. Better to do the deciphering as leaders and then 

dissiminate the deciphered message in layman's terms, in my opinion.

Technical assistance provided has been helpful.

They are amazing and only a call away! Any question any time they are there
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 386

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

[REDACTED]

Regional Laboratories and Comprehensive Centers

REL assistance.

REL Central MAP Equity Center

RTI

RTI

What is your job role?

Senior administrator overseeing state director

Staff within CCTE Office

Charter Schools Program Grants to State Entities

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

If the organization of the home page could be arranged to easier navigate the main topics. It seems 

'messy' on the home page. Many of my searches come back as none found yet I know the resource 

exists.

There have been so many changes....it is difficult to find sections or guidance applicable to old rule 

(which in some cases is still active).

It's loaded with broken links. The only reason I can ever get to CSP information is because someone in 

the Charter Schools Office sent it to me in an e-mail.

Some of the links that I tried were no longer working.

Charter Schools Program is a unique grant. In reality the federal government is providing venture capital 

to non profit entities to start a business. Because of the venture nature of the grant, the variations among 

state authorizing, and the diversity of sub-recipient school programs, much of its guidance is vague. 

While that is good because it gives state entities some flexibility; however, it is not so good when it come 

to monitoring which defaults to narrow or inconsistent interpretations of the CFRs and other guidance.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 387

I think it is changed too often. Information seems to go away over time. I don't really think about it as a 

helpful tool. I am more inclined to look in old emails or the SEA exchange or reach out to my program 

officer.

N/A

Maybe when there are updates to the web site you could post a notice to the SEA/SE Exchange?

N/A

How grant reporting process could be improved?

The submission process/system is confusing and cumbersome

We are in a no-cost extension and the data points from the original goals is no longer applicable to the 

State structure. It makes it difficult 6 years later, to collect data.

Pretty smooth process. WestED has been a great partner.

Try not to change the APR reporting requirements (what and how to report) every year or point out what's 

different from one year to the next..

The instructions for the APR FPR need to be rewritten. They are not terribly user friendly at all.

N/A

Sample reports posted to the SEA/SE Exchange?

N/A

Timeline of APR - Due in April in a FY that begins in October. Lag can make reporting a challenge, and it 

is not clear when the Dept gets a full year of data/updates.

One of the challenges with the reports is that our view is different in G5; therefore, it is not always clear 

how to resubmit documents when asked. It was also very confusing to learn that the answers for the 

annual report had to be input into G5. The meeting that was held was informative; however, it was 

confusing for those of us who had not previously completed the process.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

Continue doing what you are doing

I have only overseen this grant for 7 months. I have not had many opportunities for the TA. So my 

experience is relatively low.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 388

Updates to non regulatory guidance is needed.

The non-regulatory guidance has not been updated since 2014 under NCLB. New non-regulatory 

guidance would be very helpful.

The Clearing House is a good resource but there is little opportunity for meaningful conversation about 

practice among state entities.

I really believe that when a grantee is awarded some sort of playbook or guide should be given to the 

new grantee, outlining next steps, what to focus on first, what they need to develop, etc... The only 

way we obtained this information is through the help of peers who came before us or bumbling our way 

through it. I was very surprised that other than the GAN there wasn't really much of any other guidance 

provided.

It would be nice to see what other states are requesting. Perhaps there are chances to collaborate we 

are unaware of?

N/A

Response time. Staff seem limited to repeating the statute, less free to problem solve and imagine 

different apporaches.

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

National Charter School Resource Group

[REDACTED]-Manhattan Strategy

Manhattan Strategies and WestED.

National Charter School Resource Center (Manhattan Strategy Group and WestEd)

NCSRC

NCSRC and WestED.

Regional Labs

REL Southeast has worked with us quite a bit and does an excellent job of helping us support our 

systems, schools, and students.

[REDACTED] and [REDACTED] (wested)

West-Ed
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 389

What is your job role?

Supervisor of Grant manager

Child Care Access Means Parents in School

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Visual appearance to help navigate where you want to go. More intuitive as you click on resources.

Better more frequent communication. Friendlier support staff. Info about the grant. I always feel so lost 

and don't know if I'm doing things right. Always in fear that I will lose the grant.

I understand that the website is accessible and meets the needs of the user. Maybe put some documents 

in several languages for users whose first language is not English.

For CCAMPIS Grant Recipients, we need updated information about budget modification expenses that 

are acceptable especially during these COVID challenging times.

No comments for improving. Continue the excellent job that is currently in place.

I think its user friendly and analyst is always responsive.

I have had trouble navigating the website. There is a lot of information.

In my opinion I feel that there is no improvment really need to done on the website. The material on the 

website is valuable and help me to get the answer I need from the site.

At first, I was going to suggest keeping the website information and data up to date but I see the website 

was updated on 9/15/2020. Other than this, I think the website provides sufficient information and is well 

organized. m

The terminology is sort of confusing - I suspect you use internal lingo that's not necessarily the same as 

what the rest of us are familiar with. Eg what's an inquire action or an initiate action? It would be nice if I 

could see the grant balance. If I do have access to our balance, I have no idea how to do so, and I've 

tried. It would also be nice to offer some sort of DoE org chart. Something about the font - it's small, not 

enough white space it just pains me to try to read through it all. I am glad it's not overly busy or cluttered, 

and I do appreciate how secure it is.

There isn't any helpful information on the website and when I have looked for answers I am unable to find 

them. When I emailed my first project officer her responses were slow and unprofessional. I got a new 

project officer and his responses are MUCH better, quick and clear and not rude or condescending.

Info about the CCAMPIS Program is buried in the website.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 390

CCAMPIS in particular covers a broad spectrum of grant activities. It would he helpful to see on a map 

where projects are located with imbedded contact info from project officials so regional collaboration 

between grantees could occur.

I don't have anything to add

More user friendly and the ability to see the most current grant and it's guidelines.

I haven't had the need to visit the website, so I cannot speak to how to improve it.

I only check the website when I have questions regarding grant awards or new grant opportunities. I rely 

more on the emails I receive from DOE and determine from them if information is applicable.

Make sure that current information is listed in order. It is difficult to find the most recent information such 

as contracts, etc.

Welcome to grantees when we are assigned to a new Program Specialist

More descriptive, easier links for searches.

NA

No suggestions at this time

Make it a little user friendly. More descriptive titles would be an example. Often I have to hunt around an 

area to find what I want.

No recommendations at this time.

Critical information related to the application appears in different locations. Also not all of the information 

is in all locations. Some appear in one place and others in another place. It would be helpful to have all 

that you need to complete a thorough and strong application together.

I know all are busy but setting up a possible time limit to email responses. All responses should come 

back in a timely manner.

Passwords to the G5 site are have to be long and complicated and changed so frequently!!

Currently, I have no suggestions for the website.

More FAQs regarding the CCAMPIS grant, not just the application, but ongoing information. Also, any 

updates in relation to Covid-19 would be great too. Most information is gotten by contacting your 

assigned contact or through N4C listserv.

For someone who is not tech savvy it can be difficult to navigate. Perhaps directions that are easily 

accessible for new users?

I have not been to the website. The other manager of the grant at my college has access.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 391

Overall appearance...might be clearer And simpler to find the link to CCAMPUS

I have not used the website for the CCAMPIS grant, so I'm not able to offer suggestions on how it could 

be improved.

Update your website.

It is hard to find information, clear tabs and maybe providing training on how to use it.

More opportunities to understand best practices through the website. Provide a list of reporting deadlines. 

Share information regarding Covid-related adjustments.

The website can be improved housing more updated information and resources.

Keep it updated

There's a lot of text with smaller font, could use more white space to help readability.

I found the website to be helpful, with the exception of some information that I learned was not up-todate. It did not match what was sent in an email.

Perhaps more resources on stats and best practices supporting student parents in higher ed.

N/A

Might be my own ability, but I find it hard to search for specific updates and current information.

I think the website is easy to navigate

More detail of permissible activities would be helpful. Also, additional FAQ and support questions 

updated regularly, not just on the application process but the execution.

The website can be improved by extending the information to include more details and currently 

information.

More links to updated information on COVID-19 . Suggestions on how to adapt grant with the current 

crisis .

I haven't used the site in relation to CCAMPIS.

More details in regards to how to properly award grantees. Specifically in regards to student 

qualifications.

Unsure.

List information for current grantees separate from general Q & A sections.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 392

Creating a more user friendly website Navigating made more simple

Provide more thorough FAQs

Unsure

How grant reporting process could be improved?

Provide information once grant is received. I had one style and expectation of report due first time. 

Changed expectations for second report and was blind-sided with what was expected to report. I was 

using the information from first report to keep accurate records and data. 2nd report asked entirely 

different information. If reports could be shared at the start, I would know exactly what is expected.

Give more clear info. Give info.

Sending notification that they received them.Offering clearer guidance on what exactly the APR requires.

Give us the APR Report prior to the semester so we know what data to collect for the report. Due to 

having additional administrative responsibilities, simplify the reporting process.

The granting reporting process is currently good. No suggestions.

I think more time to get it in to you would be appreciated. It takes time to route through my district.

It would be great to have a training on how to do the reporting and it's purpose.

From experience of this grant I think it is easy process and this is an awesome grant.

I would like to know more information on how ED uses CCAMPIS APR data. Otherwise, the process is 

pretty straightforward and easy to complete. It would be helpful to have some general/consistent ideas of 

when the report is expected each year.

The overall process was okay, but there were some areas that needed clarification (and not just by me - I 

reached out to colleagues at other campuses who were confused about some of the same areas). 

Example - the student reported date. When/how often is that supposed to occur? What is the difference 

between Helpful and Important in question 6? The overaraching issue for me was that I didn't know 

what was going to be asked on the APR. If we had been offered a copy of the APR at the start of the 

grant, I would have known what/how to track from Day 1. Instead, I had to backtrack through a year's 

worth of information in a rushed amount of time in order to collect what was needed.

I have not had to complete a report yet so I am unsure.

Inform how the data is used.

With projects in CCAMPIS so very different, not all metrics are helpful as a 'cost per year' or even 'cost 

per term'. Also, programs that migrate families to longer-term support from CCAMPIS dollars will appear 

to be under-performing in subsequent timeframes, giving a skewed view of the CCAMPIS impact. Many 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 393

projects also keep at their core activities that encourage and promote persistence that are tangential to 

childcare costs. these activities are not measured well with the metrics in place.

Provide list of requested data ahead of time.

Give more notice on the deadline and give reminder notices in a timely manner o help prepare for the 

report.

Often times the report sent isn't easily accessible. Seems like there should be an easier format with 

which to send the form. Because we are not given a lot of time to complete the report, we run up against 

getting help from our Institutional Research department. Being up front with what will be asked at which 

time periods (annual, 6 month, etc) - and consistent - would be incredibly helpful. It would also be good to 

know what is done with the data and how it is used by DOE, specifically in thinking about whether to 

renew programs or not. In general, more clarity and ease of use.

Providing more notice when APR will be due and technical assistance for completing especially for first 

time awards

Better and clear communication.

n/a

NA

Provide more clarity on items for reporting

No suggestions at this time

I think having a question and answer session or webinar with instructions and frequently asked questions 

we could refer to would be very beneficial.

No improvement to recommend at this time.

Let applicants know the information expected and the format prior to awarding the funds.

Issue clear instructions in some areas where questions may arise.

Gets easier to understand each year.

N/A

Give clear expectations of reporting when applying for the grant, so we know what data to collect.

I have not done it myself yet, however I did assist in reporting when I worked for another institution. It was 

readily apparent to me that data should have been kept from the beginning in one location. Directions to 

new grant holders on the need to do this would be extremely helpful.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 394

Continue to answer questions when they arise.

Feel like I'm too new to CCAMPIS and reporting seems to have been done in a different way due to 

COVID and changes in project manager.

1) Provide the information about reporting in GAN, 2) update reporting documents and information on

your website, and 3) most importantly, it would be great if my PO answered my questions about reporting

rather than ignoring multiple emails

Provide a guide to reporting on CCAMPIS.

Provide a video tutorial on how to complete each sections. The fiscal year, Oct 1-Sept 3, and academic 

year do not align that makes reporting tricky. It would be MUCH easier if those years aligned. Also, the 

report was due in January when many personnel in academic institutions have been out of the office. 

This makes gathering information from other departments and institutions difficult. Having the due date 

be before December 15 or very end of January or beginning of February would be helpful.

a little confusion about additional funding (4th year of our award), but great communication

Just email it in, not deal with a software?

Grantees can be provided with greater clarity and details on reporting requirements specific to that year's 

APR in advance.

Clearer directions

N/A

I think that it will be easier now that we have done it a couple of times. We sought clarification a couple of 

times with no response, but submitted our report anyway, and it was fine.

More continuity between dept staff in terms of feedback to questions.

I answered N/A to several questions because we are 1st year recipients of the grant and have not had to 

submit any reports to date.

Establish consistent timeframe and process.

Specific dates for reporting timelines .

Overall this has been a good experience. We had a few issues with the fillable form last year but the 

program officer sent another template and we worked it out.

I would prefer to have the annual data form at the beginning of the year. We must keep data on a 

separate form, which cannot be cut and pasted into the annual reporting form. The transfer of individual 

data from our reporting form to the ED reporting form must be completed manually, which is an 

enormous labor drain.

It can be improved by providing training of the data required for the report and the evaluation process.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 395

An Annual Performance Report (APR) has not yet been submitted.

I am new to my position and have not been involved in all stages yet, which is why I 'don't know' on many 

items.

IT would be interesting to know how the data submitted is used.

Maybe have grantees access the template when they first receive funding, so we're definitely aware in 

advance of the data that we'll need to collect and can build it in from the beginning.

N/A

N/A

Perhaps have some workshops on writing the reports.

Provide reporting documents rather than have centers create their own.

The timeframe of when the report is released to when the report is due could be increased as when it 

becomes available around the holidays it makes it difficult.

Tracking students that received years ago but are not receiving now and are not enrolled now is very 

difficult

Unsure

Would like more clarity on how the data is used and what makes a strong report versus a weak one.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

Check-in with staff, introduction and support materials provide so new grantees know how to ask for 

assistance. Where to find it, etc.

The Program Officer is excellent and super diligent.

Once again, simplify your form especially for other directors who have limited knowledge on technical 

matters.

N/A

Tech assistance has always been timely. Even with switches of analysts or leadership.

I was not aware that there was training opportunities available.

I think at this moment it answers the questions and I am able to access information from this site as 

needed.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 396

Offer more CCAMPIS specific pieces of training and information.

Other than a couple webinars that you offered over the summer in response to pandemic concerns 

(thank you for that), I wasn't aware of any other services. I did receive quick and helpful responses to 

email over the course of the summer.

I don't know of any technical assistance available besides emailing the project officer. I would love to 

have a timeline of expectations - I am not sure when budgets or reports are due. I think a listserv would 

be very helpful or a forum where we could ask questions and connect with other grantees. I think 

templates for collecting data or reports would also be helpful. I feel like I am figuring this grant out as I go 

and early on when I did email my project officer [REDACTED] responses were rude and unhelpful 

making me reluctant to ask more questions. Currently, I submitted my new fiscal year budget over a 

month ago and still haven't heard anything. I don't know when to expect a response and I am not sure 

what next steps are. More communication would be appreciated.

N/A

FAQs are general and sometimes non-grant specific. The best TA we received was at NCCC conference 

session several years ago. Many in the room were CCAMPIS veterans and surprised by the answers 

given. This suggests the TA method may not be as effective as Ed would like.

Providing more TA might be helpful. To be honest if any of these options were available, I didn't know 

about them. Perhaps I'm not properly connected, which may also be an issue. Perhaps have recorded 

webinars folks can access at various times of the day - hard when I am 3 hours behind EST for certain 

months of the year.

I have not had problems

There is such a delayed response from ED staff. Also, I think there was a turn over in my ED contact.

n/a

NA

Respond in a more timely manner to phone calls and e-mails

No suggestions at this time

More check in with staff. I feel at this time the response time is a little long when asking questions but I do 

understand this is an unusual time.

N/A

The COVID webinar was very helpful

N/A

Maybe provide a listserv for CCAMPIS, so we are not only communicating with programs that pay the 

N4C membership.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 397

Due to the pandemic there was not a conference, and my technical assistance assigned staff moved. 

While [REDACTED] was there she did answer promptly. After [REDACTED] left it has been difficult to get 

answers I need, but I now have a new assigned staff person and am hopeful communication will 

improve. I have relied heavily on input from Directors of other CCAMPIS grants in the meantime.

It could be more timely. It took a long time to distribute the information during COVID

intentionally connecting other CCAMPIS grant recipients with those who are applying or new to receiving 

the grant

More webinars or updates and program to program best practices.

Have program specialist that are readily available to answer questions. That could take the form of a 

regular monthly optional check in zoom session.

Make it so that it is more user friendly.

Increased opportunities for training specific to the CCAMPIS grant.

The items listed need to be implemented

We never used the technical assistance that the Department provides.

I was not aware of technical assistance provided by the dept staff.

Answered N/A as we did not receive technical assistance (webinars, workshops, meetings, listserv etc.) 

from our program manager.

Not sure what technical assistance is available?

Respond to inquiries with more than 1 word answers. Provide any form of training or information sharing.

Have not had an issue with this.

It would be helpful if there was a list of awarded programs on the site so we could connect with each 

other for support and to share best practices.

More responsive when questions are sent to representative. More information about when TA is 

available.

N/A

Trainings and webinars. Where would I be able to see these?

What is your job role?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 398

childcare director

Project Director

CCAMPIS Project Director

VP of Administrative Services

grant manager

Program Director

Program Manager

Faculty, Early Childhood Education and Director, Childcare Center (on campus)

Director

Director

Director/project manager

Professor/Dept. Chair

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

CCAMPIS - 2020 - Q14.2. How can CCAMPIS improve the usefulness of the technical 

assistance you receive?

Provide useful technical assistance.

Confirming that they receive documents such as Budget and APR.

If you can please have a direct number.

The technical assistance currently in place is sufficient.

I would find a training on the CCAMPIS grant to be helpful.

Offer more information and training

I would have given 10s based on just the last few months. Although I've reported to 3 different 

people over the past 6 months due to I assume personnel changes, I have received prompt and 

helpful support and that's really appreciated. However, I didn't enter 10s because my 

experience prior to 6 months ago was frustrating. Multiple correspondences to my contact went 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 399

unanswered. The few times I did get responses, they were either unclear or didn't answer my 

questions.

The technical assistance varied for me, with the old project officer it was poor, but with my 

temporary project officer it was much better. I now have a 3rd project officer (this is my first year 

on this grant) and I am unsure how responsive and helpful they will be. But as for the web 

resources, they are not useful.

N/A

While many TAs have been timely, some have not. Confusion about TA transition and 

reallocation have been problematic at times.

The people I have reached out to in the past 12 months have been quick to respond and helpful.

Especially considering the circumstances of the pandemic.

Offer more on a regular basis

Be more responsive and personal.

n/a

NA

Respond to e-mail. Have more open dialogue on budget issues, enrollment and unforeseen 

circumstances. When a rep is reassigned or leaves, have another rep in place in a more direct 

and timely manner.

No suggestions at this time.

Faster response time. Follow up with clients after the initial call.

No recommendations at this time.

N/A

Responses should come in a timely manner.

N/A

Some sort of information for the campus. My campus was (and is) struggling how to implement 

the funds. The way CCAMPIS is implemented and what we can use the funds on really 

confuses them. Also some support for business officers who don't typically work with Federal 

Funds would be nice too. It's been a challenge figuring out also how to change mid-grant to 

support student families due to Covid 19 ongoing closures.

It would be helpful if directions were written without so much jargon- I am not sure how that can 

be done, but initially it took me a while to understand how this grant operates.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 400

no suggestions

There should be a training for new people

We have a new staff member assigned to our state. So far, we have received very timely 

responses to questions.

Improvements can be made by increasing consistency. Our interim contact was incredibly 

responsive; responsiveness of program specialists has been varied.

Replies from program officer more timely

We haven't had to use technical assistance.

N/A

less turnover of staff

Maybe they could provide resources and or training?

More timely responses to questions and more detail in the responses.

Provide more than one word responses to technical questions.

CCAMPIS - 2020 - Q14.5. What can CCAMPIS do to improve communication with you?

Monthly or quarterly email with newsletter format, where information could be provided in a 

quick read format.

Actually communicate on a regular bases. Hold workshops. Regular check ins.

Confirming that they receive documents such as Budget and APR.

Continuous and update us with latest information.

Continue communication through emails and telephone systems.

CCAMPIS analyst has always been responsive through communication.

I think check ins would be helpful during these times of COVID and how it affect the grant.

As a Director in my opinion my contact person always answer my questions when it comes to 

this grant. When he or she is not sure they would find me the answers I need.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 401

N/A

I just received the name of my new (and fourth overall) contact and haven't had a need to reach 

out about anything specific, so I don't know yet how to answer. This is my fourth contact over 

the course of a year. My first contact was for the most part unresponsive.The few times I did get 

a response, questions weren't answered clearly if at all. My second and third contacts were 

excellent.

Provide more information on the website, respond to emails promptly and respectfully, send out 

regular correspondence with updates, a newsletter or listserv would be very helpful.

N/A

Apart from changing TAs, requests for annual budgets and reports, we have initiated all 

communication.

More updates on the grant process and check-ins to see if you need assistance or if you are 

using the grant for its purpose.

Provide more of it! There was a large window when we didn't hear from y'all and we (CCAMPIS 

programs) had so many questions. Would have been nice to have a group 

conversation/webinar/something to be able to help us make decisions. Also think that would 

have more efficient for your staff - rather than having to answer a bunch of separate emails.

Grant awards being announced sooner. Our most recent award was communicated on 

September 30th. Since we did not know if we would be funded I had to limit the number of 

subsidies awarded to students and as a result could serve fewer students that semester.

Be responsive in a timely manner. However, I believe there was a turn over in ED staff for my 

program.

n/a

NA

Respond in a more timely manner to e-mails and phone calls. Reps voicemail is always full and 

messages can't be left. It takes on average 3-5 e-mails to get a response and it is rarely clearly 

aligned to the questions asked. Pat answers and vague responses.

No suggestions at this time

More information and check in's. I also think I would like to have possible one communication 

every other month to just check in and see if there are questions.

None at this time.

The grant is related to the academic year. It would be helpful to know if the funds are awarded 

before the academic year begins. Most Fall semesters begin in August. Notification in July 

would be more ideal. Notification at the beginning of August is a must to adequately prepare.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 402

More frequent check in emails

N/A

I think FAQs being sent out or a newsletter with timely information, especially with Covid 19. 

This way we can all get the information and can adjust accordingly versus trying to find out the 

information from various sources.

Now that I have an assigned specialist I am hoping communication will improve.

It look a long time to get FAQ's during Covid. It might be different normally.

Was not notified of RFP for 2021

Give clear directions around what is expected at what time and all that needs to be included--

maybe provide a template?

Be responsive to questions via email.

I have a new specialist that I can not rate at this time. My old specialist was very hard to 

communicate with and questions were not answered properly.

Access to more updates and webinars to assist new programs.

Answer my emails and phone calls.

difficult because DOE is on different fiscal calendar than most colleges and universities

I received a mass email from DOE stating that grant funds could be used differently, but when I 

reached out to my program officer, the email did not apply to CCAMPIS, which was not clear 

from the original email.

I wish it we just got the award notification through email accessing it is an a stressful process. I 

think it is nice when things pop up in plain view.

Increase communication. Our program specialist was reassigned this year so we are 

understanding of the limits in communication and assistance due to this. Our interim contact 

was very helpful & available.

more frequent communication; clearer, and program specific

n/a

Our current CCAMPIS contact has been excellent with timely responses. Our previous 

coordinator often did not respond to our questions.

we had a lot of turnover to the liaison position that led to some delays in questions being 

answered - but each person has been very helpful
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 403

We've had two DOE program managers and both of them are difficult to contact. Be available 

via phone and email.

CCAMPIS - 2020 - Q14.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your 

program specialist?

Combination of either list email or webinar for news or updates that impacts all; and individual 

email or phone for college-specific concerns

All the things.

Combination depending upon the urgency or specificity to our institution of the information 

provided.

CCAMPIS - 2020 - Q14.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process and 

protocols associated with this grant competition?

Clear directions on timelines, who need to apply or re-apply, follow up when submitting 

applications.

Clear instructions, communication, q&a sessions.

Confirming receipt of documents

Due to COVID crisis, we need to know if we can carry over funds from our last year to the 

following year.

Excellent as is.

I think for those that are ending their grant cycle should get notifications that the new grant cycle 

is not for them. Our district needs to renew by 9/30/21 and this years cycle was for new 

grantee's only.

I think more personal communication is always helpful.

I think the overall process and protocols are working as it should. It is over grants may offer 

assistance but everyone may not be eligible for other grants that is being offer.

I think there are good practices in place such as webinars. I think there should be more 

conferences (or at least conference sessions) dedicated to the CCAMPIS program.

I was not involved with applying during the competition so cannot address.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 404

I would love to have a webinar that is specific to CCAMPIS - there have been webinars offered, 

but no time to ask questions and most of the webinar did not discuss issues relevant to 

CCAMPIS.

I would not change the process for applying for the CCAMPIS grant. The procedures are clear 

and, the application is user friendly.

I would suggest that programs who utilize grant writers for their submissions would need to 

disclose that information somewhere on the application. Not all programs have access to grant 

writers and I feel it gives some programs an unfair advantage when it comes to knowing the 

proper verbiage and design of the grant application.

It would be helpful to condense the directions in one place. The RFP had notes on what was 

required in two or three places, often expounding on the information in another place. Looking at 

the reviewer notes, it feels like this is plug and play to/from there. It may be helpful for applicants 

to see this rubric then have a narrative explanation of what the grant application is looking for to 

accompany.

It would be nice to get a notice when it is time for you to reapply for the next grant. It is hard to 

understand which year your are applying for.

Just more notice. A webinar on successful grants and strategies, and clarification on what 

exactly should be included.

More clarity and communication about the process and timeline would have been nice, so at 

least folks knew where things were.

More lead time to prepare the grant application

More time allocated for development and submitting of new grants. At times, I have received 

more information on CCAMPIS from the National Coalition for Campus Children's Centers list 

serve than the DOE,

N/A

n/a

NA

NA

No suggestion

None

Nothing to recommend at this time.

Notify applicant of the award in July.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 405

Possibly individual meetings as new budgets are being written.

process is good but sometimes the turn around time is short.

Provide more space in webinars for grantees.

Provide some successful samples. Not many of us have written these types of grants before 

and we can't all afford to hire a grant writer to do this for us.

The first thing I would highly suggest is giving more time for potential grantees to write the grant 

prior to it being due. The amount of data that is needed to be collected requires communication 

with various departments at a University, and planning well for how to use the grant time 

consuming. This is a grant that is of tremendous assistance to parenting students, but not 

always easy to apply for in the time alloted.

The renewal process was confusing. It took us several drafts to be successful. It would be 

helpful to give more directions during the renewal process.

Timely notification and more time to submit

too new to this grant and grants, in general, to have suggestions for improvement

Update website and better communication with Program Specialist.

We should have a webinar to meet our specialist to create a stronger bond for communication.

When we were applying, it was very unclear who to contact for assistance and information. We 

were passed around to several different phone numbers.

College Assistance Migrant Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Fine as is.

Under the Grant Monitoring Tab, the website indicates that if you want more information to 'Please visit 

the resource section periodically for new materials and information on Grant Management and 

Monitoring' and the link takes you to content that is not connected to grant management and monitoring. 

Overall, the website has a clean streamlined feel to it.

The information is there but you have to know what to look for and where to look for it.

This site is much better than the previous versions.

Once the meeting materials are presented live, it takes a long time for the meeting materials to be upload 

on the website.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 406

workshop or technical assistance on how to navigate the website

N/A

A tab that has current legislative initiatives.

Fewer dead links

No suggestions.

Update information about CAMP grants. The last information in the website is from 2016 CAMP 

applications.

I haven't used it enough to provide sufficient guidance.

N/A

It does a great job, I think it's me trying to figure out what I need and how to look for it.

I don't have any particular suggestions at this time.

One point of improvement can be to include a drop down menu for 'topics' while also leaving the ability 

for people to type in their own topic of interest int he search box.

The Technical Assistance Resources (bottom right of page) section is a duplicate of the blue box above, 

but some of the links do not work. The Meeting Materials are not up to date; I believe the most recent 

ones are from 2017.

maybe some videos welcoming and a chatbot Dept Ed daily News.

A video indicating on how to use the site.

NA

an easier way to find data

Clearer navigational buttons and better search output

None

The website is helpful as is.

continue to making it more friendly, develop it from the users point of view.

Website is responsive to program needs. Continuing to maintain current data is most important.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 407

I find it a useful source of information. I do like to see the CAMP profile data at the end of each reporting 

year. It would be great if we could continue to have that information available on the site.

have not visited website per se, just very specific pages, so I have no input

Just a bit more description of where to find information.

Just making sure the files we are able to download are as updated as possible. Sometimes they can be 

several years old but not sure if that would still be considered the most recent version.

How grant reporting process could be improved?

N/A

Review the Excel form for typos. The tab for reporting progress on specific program objectives is a bit 

clunky to do on an Excel spreadsheet.

More trainings for new directors

I think that things are straight forward.

Provide more Q&A and informative sessions for Directors to ask questions regarding the reporting 

process.

continue trainings in the Annual Directors Meetings

N/A

Earlier deadlines. Clearer definitions. Examples.

Individual program objectives' page is clunky, at best.

No improvements.

Keep the dates established. The department move up the APR due date 45 days. It created a big 

problem for grants that are re applying.

Provide us with more guidance regarding the evidence of promise research and how it should be 

incorporated into the APRs.

Uploading the yearly performance outcomes in the OME website.

Minimize required narrative that is a part of responding to objective outcomes.

It could be useful to have an infographic or other type of visual to show how data is used and share that 

with programs or add it to the website. More so to have a visual in addition to text.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 408

I think we have come a long way and the APR is much more simplified than before. I'm not exactly sure 

how to improve it right now, but I would welcome the opportunity to set some time aside specifically for 

directors to discuss/brainstorm ideas.

everything is excellent.

Provide feedback on the reporting process more than just once a year.

NA

None. All info is provided on time.

I believe the current grant reporting process works well.

Reporting process includes sufficient detail to facilitate completion and transmission.

Clear reporting submission dates.

The excel sheet was a bit tricky when it came to the formating of the objectives. My program officer was 

readily available which made the transition easier but it could have been a nightmare if that had not 

happened.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

I appreciate the move from Webex to Zoom. The recent ADM was implemented smoothly. Keep the 

Zoom. I know that some of the OME staff is new and getting up to speed. Hopefully they can be even 

better prepared for technical questions related to non-regulatory guidance. A couple of times when they 

were asked questions that are standard parts of the guidance, they said they would have to get back with 

an answer (that was readily available in the guidance) or in once instance a project director gave an 

answer and the staff member just accepted it as true (and actually the director was not quite accurate).

Continue with the technical assistance webinars.

OME has always been quick and responsive to my requests. They also support you in decision making 

and reference pertinent regulations and legislation.

Continue the Mentor Initiative. Create technical assistance sessions for other areas in the program like 

recruitment, retention, etc. Also, share professional development opportunities for grant writing, etc.

monthly Trainings in specific areas on need.

N/A

'How to' video's.

-
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 409

Allow for more timely feedback on questions to OME.

The trainings are good, but it is the same material year after year. People that have more than two years 

in the position already knew the PP I think that material needs to be updated with new questions and 

activities. Training is created to build knowledge not to keep the status quo.

More of it.

They are doing an excellent job with the Coaching Initiative.

Host more open virtual hours to respond to program guidance and regulations questions from the field.

more training and guidance on evaluation

Increase the frequency of technical assistance.

NA

Bringing some of the workshops from the Annual Directors Meeting into the HEP/CAMP National 

Conference maybe helpful. Continuing some of those conversations at the HEP/CAMP National 

Conference.

Providing materials to be used in the technical assistance presentations ahead of the session would be 

helpful.

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

Annual Director's meeting/training

N/A

OFFICE OF MIGRANT EDUCATION

What is your job role?

Director

program coordinator

Program Director

CUSTOM QUESTIONS
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 410

CAMP - 2020 - Q63.6. What additional topics would you like discussed during CAMP 

meetings, webinars, or phone calls to help you implement a high-quality program?

Good afternoon: I am new at my new position as CAM director, so I will not be able to leave any 

feedbacks for now. Thank you!

I cant think of anything

In my position, OME is implementing a high-quality program across the board. Especially, when 

they include aggregated information regarding the performance from all grants in the country.

Grant writing, budget management techniques, best practices to serve and engage CAMP 

alumni.

Programs communicating with Directors communicating with Directors and Advisors 

communicating with Advisors and Recruiters communicating with Recruiters. Continue the APR 

webinar training's, and cost extension training's, Last year reporting s, and continue the Peer 

Mentor Project very beneficial for all project directors and implement these for advisors and 

recruiters too.

n/a

What are the plans for future reporting given COVID-19? Does the Department expect to see 

unmet GPRA's? What are there projections?

-

More and more scenarios and/or examples of evidence-based research.

Information about free online resources that CAMP programs could use and trainings in how to 

use the resources

Successfully implementing programs and managing stress of staff during the COVID era.

Continue to provide CAMP Best Practices.

None at this time.

How we fit in the big picture of Dept of Education. Leaders from other dept of Education.

More examples of best practices for projects implementing great programs.

Extended definition of and explanation of what 'Follow up Services' entail and what is allowable.

More evidence based training, how to disseminate program data
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 411

None for now

Current student/family struggles dealing with the COVID Pandemic and how this impacts 

students' academic achievement.

Diversity in hearing from programs at universities, community colleges, and non-traditionally set 

up programs.

Response to COVID student needs; Challenges operating in a remote environment

COVID has had an impact on our programs - that have caused us to have to adjust to the 

circumstances.

CAMP - 2020 - Q63.7. What could the CAMP team do to improve the content of technical 

assistance?

Provide more opportunities to share best practices.

I can't think of anything

NA

Create more breakout rooms for discussion and case scenarios related to budget, retention, etc. 

to practice and share knowledge.

maybe 'check-ins' one on one with each program to see what help is needed.

n/a

Provide scenarios and fun games to get us learning!

-

N/A

Update information in the web, when PP have questions change them periodically, and provide 

more active participation.

I know we have a fairly new team, so just continuing to learn more to better respond to our 

needs.

N/A

I can't think of any new content to add.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 412

I think quarterly virtual meetings to share updates from the department or even allow programs 

to share best practices.

address any areas that show low results in the projects.

Provide a recording of webinars when programs present about their research components.

na

Despite of being a very small team, they do a great job.

Continue to gather feedback from projects.

Zoom Meetings

CAMP - 2020 - Q63.8. What could the CAMP team do to improve the structure or format of 

technical assistance?

I can't think of anything. They have done with with the virtual meetings this year given the 

circumstances.

Continue with the technical assistance webinars

I am familiar with the structure and format of the technical assistance that they offer. My opinion 

is that it is great, but that is also because I know a good deal about conforming our grant 

performance to the expectations that OME outlines.

N/A

maybe visual links

n/a

Short video's.

-

Continue with content, just provide more of it.

I already shared my ideas

The ADM was better structured than the NDO.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 413

Excellent job with the webinars.

More on-on-one sessions with project leadership.

Given the current situation, I think the video conferencing we've used thus far has worked quite 

well.

use breakout rooms, use easier to use software, use some videos form families we serve.

Provide the technical assistance quarterly.

na

Better align presentation topics with CAMP objectives or within the scope of CAMP

None for now

Structure and format is fine.

CAMP - 2020 - Q63.9. Please share any comments on how the CAMP team can better 

support your work. Please include any ideas that the HEP team may use to better support 

your work as it relates to your project’s specific needs.

I believe we receive good support from the CAMP team. Did you mean to ask about ideas that 

the CAMP team may use to better support our work and not HEP?

N/A Not a HEP program

Continue to work quickly and efficiently with projects for reporting and submitting APRs.

Continue to foster relationships and answer questions promptly.

Maybe a friendly 'hello' and asking us how we are from time to time.

n/a

Yearly benchmarks to reach that can be shared bi yearly or tri yearly.

-

Already suggested in previous comments.

N/A
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 414

More timely responses.

None at this time.

Overall I am satisfied with services, the only wish I have sometimes is to reduce the waiting time 

between asking for guidance and receiving that guidance.

Overall, I think the HEP CAMP team has done a great job supporting us as best as they can.

updated information on COVID. how it will impact services, grants, results.

Provide more support and implementation ideas now that we are dealing with COVID-19.

na

Continue to provide timely responses to questions Provide budgeting templates and resources 

to help programs

Definitely use Zoom from now on.

More updates on what is going on on a national level

CAMP - 2020 - Q63.10. Are there any other federal programs providing you technical 

assistance in form and/or content the HEP/CAMPteam should consider as a model?

CAMP team is doing a good job.

I am not familiar with any other federal program TA.

I believe that the technical assistance currently provided works for me.

In truth, CAMP is the model that should be followed for federal programs in terms of funding 

levels, performance indicators and continued support by the OME staff. An area of future 

concern/opportunity is to expand services and funding levels in a reasonable way to provide 

services to second year (sophomore) students.

N/A

n/a

n/a

N/A
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 415

No

NO

No

No.

None

None

None that I can think of at this time.

None that I can think of at this time.

None, but in my experience, GEAR UP and TRiO may have models we can look into.

none.

Not that I am aware at the moment.

Trio programs provide information on a program's prior experience point upon submission and 

acceptance of the APR

Comprehensive Literacy State Development

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Some of the documents on the site need to be updated. Stakeholders have had a hard time finding 

information that they need and have reached out to me for guidance. The KMS that the contractors 

developed is an excellent resource for state offices, but is not designed for the subgrantees or the 

general public.

Unless you know specifically that grants are in Well-Rounded Programs, it is difficult to find information. 

Additionally, grant recipients and proposals are not updated in a timely manner.

Continue to give notice of the changes and what entities are required to view and use.

A site map would be extremely helpful.

no improvement needed
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 416

Terminology and keywords for searching. Sometimes the information is there but hidden under terms that 

are not well known.

As is, it is comprehensive and diverse resources available for guidance and support.

How grant reporting process could be improved?

The budget side of reporting is often confusing. How States budget is different from what ED requires. 

Usually I have to work directly with my state officer to ensure it's done correctly. She provides excellent 

service and works tirelessly to make sure it's completed correctly.

I don't recall seeing reports of the data over the years of the grant.

Require more time to complete report instead of previously allowable timeline.

The progress monitoring goals are challenging and I feel not as meaningful as a narrative of goals 

explaining action taken toward those goals. The # or % requirement distills the work that is actually 

occurring. I think a narrative report alone would be sufficient.

Clear guidelines on what is needed well in advance of deadlines.

We report to the Striving Readers KMS system, which works well. Our information is uploaded to the G5 

system. I only navigate the G5 system when accessing grant documents and the updated GANs.

NA Synergy has been extremely helpful and the system easy to use.

continued conversation and maybe something similar to Community of Practice (CoP) embedded with 

similar demographics.

This year, reporting state data may be a bit tricky because of COVID19, emergency legislative changes 

in our state. Nothing that you can do, really, just thinking forward and hoping you will be flexible.

Clear directions should be provided under questions marks on the screens in the KMS

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

The program staff do an excellent job supporting state directors. Most of the TA is provided by the 

contractor who also offers assistance when asked.

I have no comments.

Regular touch base calls to make sure we are on track.

I don't interact with department staff for technical assistance. I don't recall assistance ever being offered.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 417

Our needs have been met very well through: Monthly TA calls Peer to Peer opportunities for learning 

Regular convenings

Continued interactive sharing across grantee (strategies, data collection, communication, resources and 

most importantly role alike

It seems like the TA providers are limited in the amount of assistance they can provide. When we ask for 

help with resource development, our TA provider is great about connecting us with other states and 

reviewing what we create, but really not engaged in helping us create resources.

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

Synergy/AIR

Synergy and REL-SE are the primary providers for our TA and professional learning.

Regional Laboratories

AIR

SEI Services

Reegional Lab (REL) CC #18

Comprehensive Centers

REL Pacific

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

CLSD - 2020 - Q44.8. How helpful is the information and guidance provided to you by the 

US Department of Education staff and contracted staff in preparing to implement your 

SRCL grant activities?

[REDACTED] has been super supportive and incredibly helpful, particularly with helping us to 

solve issues and challenges that inevitably surface with a grant of this magnitude.

ED staff and Synergy staff have worked very hard to understand our state's needs and assist as 

needed. They have also reached out if they feel our work could assist other states. The state 

directors have repeatedly asked for collaborative opportunities between the states and our 

request are always accommodated.

The TA helps us connect to other districts with similar concerns.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 418

The USDOE staff and TA have been very supportive and understanding with how we implement 

the CLSD within our education system. They continue to extend invitations on webinars, 

resources and follow ups on where we stand with our work.

very

Very helpful and responsive

Very helpful. The resources provided through the KMS system and virtual communities of 

practice are beneficial. Would be helpful to have more templates available at beginning of grant 

period. (e.g. monitoring and budget formats, annual performance reporting formats)

Very helpful: monthly check-in calls TA plan Reach to other states for collaboration and 

learning

We are grateful to our outstanding Project Officer [REDACTED]. She is amazing lead to us, 

fully supportive and responsive.

CLSD - 2020 - Q44.8. How helpful is the information and guidance provided to you by the 

US Department of Education staff and contracted staff in preparing to implement your 

SRCL grant activities?

[REDACTED] has been super supportive and incredibly helpful, particularly with helping us to 

solve issues and challenges that inevitably surface with a grant of this magnitude.

ED staff and Synergy staff have worked very hard to understand our state's needs and assist as 

needed. They have also reached out if they feel our work could assist other states. The state 

directors have repeatedly asked for collaborative opportunities between the states and our 

request are always accommodated.

The TA helps us connect to other districts with similar concerns.

The USDOE staff and TA have been very supportive and understanding with how we implement 

the CLSD within our education system. They continue to extend invitations on webinars, 

resources and follow ups on where we stand with our work.

very

Very helpful and responsive

Very helpful. The resources provided through the KMS system and virtual communities of 

practice are beneficial. Would be helpful to have more templates available at beginning of grant 

period. (e.g. monitoring and budget formats, annual performance reporting formats)

Very helpful: monthly check-in calls TA plan Reach to other states for collaboration and 

learning
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 419

We are grateful to our outstanding Project Officer [REDACTED]. She is amazing lead to us, 

fully supportive and responsive.

CLSD - 2020 - Q44.9. What technical assistance topics can the SRCL program provide 

during meetings and SRCL Communities of Practice events to support the states more 

effectively?

Data management and use

Supporting rural districts, sustainable project success, working with higher ed.

We have a high percentage of ELLs population and would appreciate assistance as to how to 

support those students. This is the population of students' whose native language is spoken a 

100% at home and are only expose to English when they go to school six hours a day.

Measuring progress / progress performance goals writing and monitoring Steering the work 

toward the disadvantaged subgroups Adapting program goals and approaches to distance and 

hybrid models of school delivery

Preparing for writing the annual reports

I can't think of a new topic, but I have learned from all of them and appreciate the time to share 

with other states.

Resources and Communities of Practice currently offered are effective.

Continued focus on Early Literacy, Secondary Literacy Across Disciplines and Culturally 

Responsive resources on our indigenous languages.

supports for subgroups of students: SWD, English learners, gifted adolescent literacy supports 

for building strong systems

Demonstration Grants for Indian Children/Special Projects for Indian 

Children 

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Have ready access to all government forms required in a grant application. Be able to download a full 

grant application easier. Know that the School District Superintendent is the grant AOR, not the 

Business Manager (as in the 2020 grant announcement). This caused a delay in downloading the grant 

application during the summer). Know the school system instructional timeline and outside educational 

providers must meet the same employee requirements as a teacher (background check, UA, ED 

Experience, references, etc.).

Please keep the website updated. Some links have not been updated in quite some time.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 420

Continue to update the site and add resources to that site not other sites.

It is effective as is. One has to be knowledgeable about where to look. The FAQ tutorial and links to 

answers is a nice addition.

I have not used the website much at all in the last year

The website is fine.

None at this time.

I can't get it to load...maybe my connectivity...but none the less, it won't load.

It's really hard to find the Office of Indian Education from the main Department of Ed site. You have to 

really dig to find it. It would be good if there is an icon right of the home page. Once you get to Office of 

Indian Education page though, it is well organized by the various programs.

Nothing that jumps out at this time.

NA

No suggestions at this time

This site has been terrible for so long. I cannot find information on the grants we actually have or people 

that we work with at the federal level. i had to back into finding the list of awardees for grants that I have. 

and I still have no idea how I got to the correct page to find that box that has the list per program. I think 

that you really need to split between federal scholarships and grants, etc. completely different websites...

Honestly like all webistes it just takes a few times to be able to naviagate and truly find what you need -

where it is and under what - I think it is more that you don't need it often enough to really know it well so 

you spend time searching for what you need...

Recently, much improvement has been made. Ensure updates are maintained.

The website is fairly new, and we have now utilized it for much at this point.

No recommendations

I have never used the website.

there are still links and information when you do an internet search the links back to the older website 

rather than the new one.

I was not aware of the OESE.ED.gov website as a resource. I reached out to [REDACTED] at the 

Millennium Group (Technical Assistance), occasionally in lieu of PO.

Ensure information remains current at all times. Offer real time data and staff contacts.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 421

I wasn't aware of this website until now. It does seem pretty well organized. We really had a hard time 

finding information on the Indian Education Demonstration Grant program for this year. We will be 

looking forward to seeing the projects that are awarded and how they managed the big changes to the 

program.

The communication between the Department and school districts could be improved.

excellent job -no other commentsOnce one website is mastered then it changes. By putting info online, and make readily available, make 

it easy to find and understandable. This would make my job easier and improve Departments website.

It would be wonderful and very helpful to be able to upload the APR's instead of entering them in 

manually. As grant managers, we have so much on our plates already. Being able to upload our grant 

report and have it auto fill or upload as a PDF would be more efficient.

More tabs to be more specific about what I am looking for instead of lumping everything together. 

Preference settings so that I can get updates quicker and on the things I need to know the most.

It is not that it needs improvement, I just have not used it. It might be helpful to share the link and let 

people know what resources are there so that people will use it more.

addition of updated FAQs; current lists of grantees; addition of comment box; addition of grantee map; 

press releases, other information about new/ongoing competitions; grant specialist contact information 

and pictures;

Include additional resources, including vendors and services, that may benefit grantees and not just 

upload webinar recordings.

The website is pretty involved. Fewer links and levels would be helpful.

Include pictures of programs all across the country to reflect the diversity of the population served.

How grant reporting process could be improved?

My LEA pro-rates salaries and fringe benefits over 12 months; groups grant line items Contractual, 

Equipment, and Other into line item Purchase Services; and the APR is required (usually April 30) or four 

(4) months before the end of the fiscal year. It is very difficult to determine carryover.

Clarify the purpose of grant reporting from OIES. In addition to reporting being a grant requirement, it 

would be good to have an understanding of the end use of the reports. This would also give more 

context for report preparation.

We need a new report site. We should not have to enter the same information ( the goals and 

objectives) for each report. We should only add the updated information. The system shuts down to 

quickly and you must re-enter all of the information if you didn't save. We should have a more user 

friendly format to view and work.

Continue with monthly guidance sessions.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 422

The reporting website is not intuitive and very confusing to use, even in year 4. I am fully aware of the 

data requirements that are needed from me, however, I am not sure what the data is used for. I have also 

never really gotten feedback on what I have done right or wrong, all I have received is whether or not we 

have been granted continuation funding or not.

The online reporting times out and information typed into forms is lost often.

Just more in-depth explanation of the aggregate reporting of percent, targets, ratio, etc. for each year and 

then, the year end date gets confusing based on the date due. But, I understand why the department 

needs to report to Congress.

G5 is sometimes glitchy. Other than that, it is fairly straight-forward.

It would easier to submit the report after the end of the fiscal year, say October 31, so that a full fiscal 

year of data can be captured. Currently, in Year 1 anyway, the reports are due around May or June 

which requires projecting results which is always a challenge to do.

G5 is not user friendly, cumbersome to navigate and difficult for a new person to learn when staff leave 

because it allows limited access for data entry.

The directions provided by US Dept of ED for grant reporting don't align with what's possible, technically, 

within the G5 reporting system.

Submitting the report online is cumbersome and the online reporting site always seems to have glitches.

Redo G5 or create a new site. It is extremely hard to navigate etc...and I do not trust uploading my 

reports. I send them to my grant officer via email.

As has been stated for years, asking for reports on this years data in May is not realistic. This year with 

Covid-19 we had little communications or trainings on APRs due as we have had in the past. Often 

educational impacts cannot be seen for years - decrease drop out rates, post-secondary applications for 

students, etc. So the real impacts may not be recorded or seen during the lifetime of the grant. Also I 

believe that There are other indicators that are not based on grades that have more value than a test. 

Include those

All grants must have evidence to illustrate the effectivenss of the grant and most have a bundle of 

requirements attached but for my district we would go to great lengths to get you whatever you need as 

we know these are monies that without them our children would not have these awesome opportunitieswe are willing to evidence whatever you need to illustrate how we have appropriately utilized the funds 

according to the narrative - we are fine with the reporting- its a lot but well worth it!

Use of standardized measures that are made clear from the beginning of grant. Reporting should that 

reflect the appropriate timeframe. Support with comprehensive training.

It is important to provide the information you require, and the process is in place. It is difficult to provide 

Annual Performance information in the Spring when the data is not available until later in the year.

I only receive an email that the report was submitted. I never get any feedback on the report so I can only 

assume that I am doing it correctly. I am assuming I would get feedback if the report was done 

incorrectly?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 423

Make clear reporting requirements.

Follow up with programs on reports submitted and discuss results or what OIE interprets from the 

submitted report.

Until there is an major overhaul of the G5 system not sure what can be improved. The system times out 

way too often while working in the system. The major issue is when the way they are asking you to 

report on data especially in GEPA doesn't match what the G5 system will allow you to submit. I have run 

across that several times when the reporting webinar is asking you to leave items blank, but the G5 

system will not let you save if you leave anything blank. So that can be confusing.

The report submission portal in G5 is antiquated and very slow. I dread report submission more than 

anything else related to managing our grant. This G5 report submission needs updating.

The G5 application is not user friendly and often crashes, including on days when reports are due. Grant 

reporting requirements were changed consistently during the grant period and often information was not 

communicated in a timely manner to inform program changes. We received no feedback from any official 

reports submitted which did not help the program evaluate its progress or overall perceived success.

The APR timelines/due dates do not necessarily work well with the calendar and usually ended up 

measuring partial completion of goals.

I think that the grant reporting process it for the most part high quality, however my perception is that the 

caseloads per Program Officer seems high enough that the 2 months prior to the due date is so hectic

that responses/clarifications become difficult to come by. I would also appreciate follow ups after my 

report has been reviewed to ensure that I can implement improvements for the next year based on 

Program Officer feedback. Even if it's brief - a few paragraphs up to 1 page - would be beneficial.

The G5 site is problematic and clunky. It has been troublesome on all sides.

none

Now that I know how to report electronically I see no need to improve.

provide more examples of superior reporting documentation; feedback on what was reported; feedback 

on how grant data is being used; comprehensive data on programs; what does the project tell OIE? and 

how can they communicate this to grantees to support each cohort?, what are they reporting out to their 

superiors on these APRs?; Add in a component of indigenous successes that aren't necessarily GPRA 

measures, i.e.- How tribes are positively impacting the community itself, not just the measures within the 

grants; Addition of open-ended response, to also allow the grantees to document successes and 

influence, not just according to our pre-determined measures, but the broader picture of how we were 

successful; follow up meetings to the APR to discuss trends, questions, etc;

I definitely appreciate that we are only required to report 1x/year instead of 2x/year. It is very difficult to 

report data in April/May when we do not have final data. It would be much easier to report data in 

June/July after the conclusion of the school year and we have accurate and completed data.

The online APR formatting is cumbersome and not user friedly. It is limiting as well.

Use a fillable online form to input information into. There have been times when G5 didn't seem 

compatible with the forms that you had to complete, such as there being a limit to the amount of 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 424

characters you could write into the various sections of the report. Also there were times there was not a 

standard form or template provided for the financial information report, and grantees used what they felt 

was a good format.

I'd prefer one on one technical assistance from Synergy Technical Assistance providers.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

Explain GPRA fully. Small, rural school districts do not have professional grant writers. Give examples 

on how to write a good goal, objective, and Performance and GPRA requirements. Keep it simple! 

Remember instructional time and distance. Small rural school districts have very little, if any, outside 

educational providers!

I would appreciate more varied training approaches. One to one correspondence, perhaps regional 

meetings, or meetings with grantees with similar projects.

Continue to help with reporting issues, budget issues, carry over funds and revisions measurements of 

objectives. We training days just for those items. We have had time with this but more training time for 

question and answer time.

More opportunities for other program staff to engage in professional development.

I believe that the technical assistance has been good, constantly providing a flow of information that can/ 

or not be used by grantees

It is fine.

Better clarification of the CFR maybe.

Referencing the four prior questions, it would be great to have program staff support in these areas and 

we did not realize that these were areas in which we could get support. That said, probably 

communicating the many aspects in which DOE staff can provide assistance would be important.

na

Sharing by leaders of PROVEN best practices, resources and project management strategies vs. 'what 

we've been doing lately' recaps on webinars.

We have received responses any time we have inquired- we have received quality responses - if i could 

say anything I would say sometimes because people are out of the office we may receive help the next 

day or so but otherwise when we do get a response they are professional and very helpful!

Most TA is done through third party. Having program officers designate TA on monthly basis to small 

cohorts.

Schedule a meeting with individual grantees, the project director, to discuss project award in depth within 

the first 2-3 months after the award

I haven't used the technical assistance so I don't know how it could be improved.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 425

More training.

[REDACTED] at the Millennium Group and the TA Community Practice website was very responsive. 

Unfortunately, OIE and DOE did not authorize updates and status in timely intervals to allow the 

Millennium Group to provide timely responses.

Ensure that all staff offering assistance are generally knowledgeable regarding all projects. Ensure that 

staff are educated regarding standard practices and environments for each of the grantees (i.e. how is 

education implemented in Oklahoma versus Navajo Nation).

Staff training for Ed goals and COVID was troublesome

I came in to this program/project about the time that Covid hit, so I am really not up to speed. The staff 

have been helpful and responsive to us.

none

Responding in a timely manner.

Staff is always willing to answer questions, but we have not really asked about more specific technical 

assistance, it may be helpful if they provide opportunities for learning on tools, or other relevant topics.

opportunities to work with like grantees; face-to-face regional meetings to provide settings for building 

relationships, conversations, and connections within grantees; opportunities for focused discussions 

regarding specifics to grant needs, budgeting, apr, allowable costs, family engagement, cultural 

integration ideas, indigenous data collection and evaluation

Sometimes the technical assistance is too much. Too many emails and documents to read. Over kill with 

the 'stuff.' We need to determine what is really important and then limit.

From the earlier stage of the demo grant awards, there wasn't as much tech assistance provided until 

about 3 years into the process, from what I remember. There was also a new PO assigned to our project 

almost yearly and sometimes a change would take place mid year,so the consistency of support was not 

as good. Currently the PO we have has stayed with us for about 3 years now for at least one of the 

grants.

small group coaching calls, sharing of data of grantees

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

Communities of Practice

I can't recall the name right now.

21st Century

21st Century Community Learning Centers
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 426

Mainly, I requested updates on upcoming Director's meeting, APR training opportunities, and gaining 

access to the Community of Practices site.

NYCP Step online.

In the last 12 months I attended the directors conference in Denver as well as several of the talking stick 

sessions.

Youth for Youth

CDI group

- Regional Laboratories - Comprehensive Centers - Equity Assistance Centers - Youth for Youth:

Online Professional Learning and Technical Assistance for 21st Century Community Learning Centers

Regional Laboratory

Youth for Youth

What is your job role?

Development DIrector

Tribal Education Director

Tribal Education Director

Administrator

Director of Education & Grant Coord.

Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Grants take a lot of time to write. Upcoming deadlines that are within a year's time should be available to 

help with the timeline.

Can't think of anything

It's a government website, but it feels cold. Also, the format isn't necessarily intuitive for where to go to 

find documents. The labeling should be easier.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 427

I don't use the site often, and when I do, it's mainly the HSI Division's site. The site doesn't seem to be 

updated very often, and it's hard to find specific information, such as staff members' roles. The 

information provided is very general, and when searching for something specific, I sometimes find myself 

going in circles and ending up back on the page from which I started.

Provide links to past webinars within a week or so of the webinar taking place. Sometimes we can't 

attend live webinars and I've had a hard time finding recordings.

Website is great, I often find that the terminology (govt. acronyms) trip me up in finding what I need. 

More explanation and links for understanding acronyms and terminology would be helpful for first time 

users.

Timely updates

The site is adequate.

It is difficult to find specific information related to my grant; especially as someone who took over after the 

first year when a colleague retired. The log-in process is also confusing.

I am not sure. There is so much important information that may come from different departments/sources 

and information searches - I imagine - are highly contextual to the question. When I have had a question 

that could not be answered by the website search, the ED staff have been very responsive to my emails.

I have no feedback at this time.

It would help if it were more interactive.

The website is excellent.

I am not sure if the site needs improved so much as my techniques for searching need to improve. I have 

been frustrated trying to search for new opportunities when I do not have the specific opportunity number 

but I know the funding was released. It is also difficult to figure out how to find the instructions.

The department should consider the employment of plain language throughout the entire website.

Break down helpful resources for program managers by year (1-5 years) of HSI grant.

I have noticed that in the past 5 years, the Department of Education has made great improvements to the 

areas I look to for information. I do not have any suggestions at this time.

Expand on the FAQs and make them more visible.

Posting current announcements on it's main grant page. For example, when the new APR due date. 

What new reporting measures could be acceptable given the pandemic and things moving virtually. 

Overall, I do always find an answer to my questions. Thank you!

It needs an update/re-design. It's not user-friendly and the layout is very cluttered. That's true for most 

.gov websites, though; it's not specific to ed.gov.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 428

N/A

No comments at this time

I found myself sometimes being sent back to the starting point while searching things.

Update the information on the site more regularly. I have not been able to find current information, 

especially about grant funding and reapplication for a current award.

Consistency in how linked documents are presented. Some links lead to documents in formats (i.e., 

Excel, Word) that must be downloaded to view. It would be more user friendly if the link populated the 

document on a webpage that we can previewed. The user can then choose to download after the 

preview.

No recommendations at this time.

User Friendly, ability to easily find what we need. There is so much information that it is difficult to 

navigate/find what i need. For example when looking for HSI Title V information I only want to be looking 

through/navigating that information and not through all department of ed grant information

The website seems very cumbersome to operate in comparison with other websites. It can be confusing 

to find what you need.

The website is mostly great, but it can be somewhat daunting and requires a lot of clicking at times to get 

to the pertinent information.

The Department could provide an easier way to track the updates to the grant applications, as well as 

easier means to identify resources.

I don't see that there is any need for improvement. I can easily find what I need on the website.

The website contains really good information. However, it's difficult to find items if/when the user does not 

have specific names for the search. A more robust search engine will help. Once the content is found, 

sometimes it's the information you obtain is too much information or extreme content, making it 

challenging to assimilate the material.

When new grant applications are in have information on where the applications are in the process such 

as in the beginning how many applications have been accepted, date given to readers and other 

milestones and finally the date the award notices are going out.

The information needs to be more directed and maybe have specific section for project directors that 

would include relevant information. Also, some attention should be given to regional resources.

The most useful information for a new DOEd grant project director, was taking Modules re: 'Managing 

Grant Risk.' Took a bit of doing to discover them, and then which Modules were really only useful to the 

lead Grant Compliance officers for the college district. So much changed in federal grant management, 

over the period 2010-2018 (not a grant manager: 2017-19... and needed to determine the developments 

in EDGAR, etc. subsequent to those years). I also found it difficult to determine the legislative status of 

Title Grants... had to look in the official 'Congressional Record', etc. for synopsis.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 429

I would appreciate a description page of all the drop down tabs that we will be using.

It is fine as it is now.

It's overwhelming to look at; endless amount of links. I suggest centralizing info and cleaning it up.

Please provide more subtitles and descriptions of specific hyperlinks, especially under 'Resources.' 

Please provide a guide on how to best navigate and search the eCFR.

I think it is good as is.

Information on the website seems to be very outdated, updated information, especially about recent calls, 

awards, and expected calls would be much appreciated.

Having a specific portion of the website that is geared towards Project Directors would be helpful as most 

of the information that we find is very general. In addition, it would be helpful if many of the regulations, 

etc would be translated into more common language. Currently there is a lot of convoluted language and 

several sections which can be interpreted to contradict one another.

Make it easier to access materials specific to questions regarding grant management, budget etc. The 

information is there but when you search there is so much that it takes a lot of time to find specific 

information.

Include certificates of completion when do online training.

I think the web have the necessary that I need.

It may just be me, but I think there is too much general information on the website, it takes awhile to find 

anything. This is in part because I don't visit the website that often, so each time I have to learn to 

naviage it almost from the beginning.

Updated information on reporting and uniform guidance

Provide an Intranet feature for Project Director to have access contact information of other DHSI project 

directors contact information, so we may collaborate with each other.

Some of the information is so wordy that it is difficult to follow. While I recognize this is necessary, it 

might be helpful to have a fact sheet or FAQs that would answer some of the more typically asked 

questions.

Integrated a friendly navigation logistic.

G-5 should be like on a main tab on the main page, as soon as one logs in.

No specific feedback or ideas at this time.

Some of the website seems outdated and could use updating, there have even been instances of broken 

links leading to nothing.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 430

The portal where submit the report looks great.

The website is very good

The website is very simple, which is great as it is not overwhelming with various colors, fonts, and photos 

in comparison to other websites. The simplicity makes it easier to navigate and I like how the various 

services are divided by tab.

How grant reporting process could be improved?

Workshops and webinars are a wonderful tool to help inform and educate especially when people are 

new in their position.

Can't think of anything

Grant reporting isn't bad necessarily, sometimes it feels repetitive. More feedback would be appreciated.

Stick to a predictable schedule. We never know when the reports will actually be due.

It would be nice to get feed back from the department on our reporting or a summary of how the results 

are used by the department.

It would be better if information regarding when grant reporting was made readily available. It is difficult 

to anticipate when the reporting system will be open and when reports will be due. Having standard 

months that are adhered to as the month that reports are due would be helpful in planning. As it is, 

Project Directors are looking over their shoulders on when the announcement will be made for reports 

due. Further having a standard format is important. Project directors anticipate what will be on the 

report from the previous report and data is collected accordingly for the entire year that aligns to the 

objectives of the project. Changes to the requests, require planning on the part of the PD.

Instructions are somewhat vague and subjective.

The reporting process is adequate.

Clearer communication about the process. Most people need information in a variety of modes and 

modalities. A letter, a video, information about how/why to log into the site, clear instructions about what 

the requirements are, reminders, confirmation of receipt.

I am good with the reporting process. I would say the proposal/application could be improved by having 

all information specific to a topic (e.g., formatting) in one section with a clear sub-heading. I found that 

instructions for specific topics were located in different places throughout the RFA instructions.

no feedback at this time

With the grant that just ended, sometimes the Year 5 measures were not consistent with the measures 

for Years 1 -4 and new measures were introduced. That is the fault of the grant writer(s) not the DOE.

The reporting platform sometimes has unexpected problems.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 431

The grant reporting process could be improved by aligning it with the grant proposal process. Clarify what 

is meant by grant objectives versus activity objectives and what is reported where. It took me a long time 

to figure out that the way the budget was aligned triggered the prompts for data. I wondered why every 

year I had different prompts. Then I figured out it was because I was using my college's way of describing 

a budget, not how the budget aligned with the grant activities. From then on I was able to allocate the 

funding to three LAAs each year, triggering the questions for which I collected data.

The grant reporting process could be more individualized, so that our institution could more readily 

contextualize our circumstances and achievements.

Reporting process is good.

It would be helpful to have a word doc or PDF doc that is a 'mock' or template to go by, this way 

programs can prepare our data points for submission in advance, then copy and paste into the website 

for submission. In the end, I suggest a template/outline of the APR to be provided 30-60 days in advance 

of the reporting period so program can work on the data points in advance and time to not rush 

responses.

Remove some of the items that do not pertain to our grant objectives and allow more opportunities for 

free response, rather than predetermined boxes that must be completed a certain way. We also need 

more trainings on exactly how to complete the APR every year and less frequent updates to the system 

while we are in the process of completing/submitting reports.

N/A we are in our first year and have not submitted an APR. But the interim report was fairly easy to 

complete with the instructions that were given. Thank you for your guidance throughout. Our Program 

Contact would answer our email questions in a timely manner.

More (and faster) feedback on reports, if possible.

N/A

No comments at this time

I would suggest a powerpoint that goes over each section with explanations. The first year I completed 

this, I did not know that it would not save my information after being on for a specific amount of time. I 

don't know if that is still an issue...as I now save after every time I complete any work on it...about every 5 

minutes.

How do you use the data that is reported? The answer to that question is unknown to me as PI on a 

DHSI grant.

No suggestions. The HEP IS website is user friendly and intuitive.

It seems that every year we do not know when the grant reporting process is going to actually happen 

and there are always some sort of issues with the online process. It is a great Idea to use this online 

process it just needs to get the bugs worked out.

There have been a lot of improvements since the start of my grant on the reporting process.

There are data items that are requested on the APR that are hard to locate because they aren't updated 

enough to meet the requirements of the APR.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 432

Honestly, improve the requirements for reporting in the application. Then the other lines of reporting 

should follow in the APR.

None needed.

The new reporting platform for APR reporting purposes is easy to use. I am happy with the way it works 

now.

Provide a better understanding why the questions are being asked and look at the questions from the 

grantees perspective.

There should be available communication like a list serve or other place to ask questions and get 

clarification. The approval process is sort of complicated too.

I assumed the role of Grant Project Director 6 mos. into the contract. Have only completed one I.P.R. 

COVID lock-down [working-from-home] means there is no way to ascertain what would be 'S.O.P.'

I would have liked to have had a template for the information that I was required to upload into the 

database.

The new website had some bugs this last year. A couple of pages on the site did not work until close to 

the submission deadline causing us stress about when it would be available. I emailed the technical 

team with questions a few times and never once received a reply. It is also worth noting that the output 

file we download after submitting is not formatted well, and many pages/areas are cut off. For example, 

the budget page is very messy and nearly impossible to read.

We would like to continue with the current grant reporting process.

First, make the grant fiscal year align with IHE fiscal years. More clearly define budget line item 

definitions; institutional definitions and DOE definitions for APR don't align. Allow more characters to 

provide accurate update on progress of projects since the targets/indicators don't align. Provide more 

templates so we can prepare in advance; especially for the budget. Provide more guidance on grant 

close out.

Please provide a thorough webinar training on best practices to collect and obtain data necessary to fulfill 

APR requirements, especially for new Project Directors. Although the online platform for reporting is 

optimal, please provide more information, context, or tips for sections 3b Focus Area Outputs (each 

question), and 3d Objectives and Performance Measures (measures tables).

Ease the requirements of the reporting to make it more practical for the grantees. As it stands, parsing 

out expenditures by legislative allowables does not align with program goals or outcomes. Also, reporting 

metrics should be consistent from year to year to measure progress and not necessarily based on 

expenditures.

The DHSI team, led by [REDACTED], has been extremely helpful with the guidance that they proivde to 

complete the report. [REDACTED] makes the reporting process easy to follow. I honetsly cannot think of 

anything that can be done to imporve the process.

Sometimes the APR have some questions very difficult to complete, for example the Institutional 

Management questions.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 433

This was my first APR and I wasn't exactly sure what to expect. I reached out to another community 

college and they shared a report so I could have a visual idea. Once the APR was available, I 

immediately went through it and noted the information I needed and started pulling information togehter. 

What I didn't expect, once I returned to the form and started entering information it opened other fields of 

information I needed to collect-talk about a panic attack. I now know what to expect for the following year.

The submission website was a little cumbersome to navigate, for example accessing each program 

objective/reporting area was challenging once 20+ were entered and I had to navigate to find it again as I 

was working on it.

Provide detailed feedback for each section. We do a lot to submit this report and get little to no feedback 

by section or scoring to know if we are on track or need to improve.

The format is very difficult to submit information in. Having multiple pages to sift through and make sure 

were completed. I preferred the format of the interim performance report and it aligned better with the 

format, benchmarks and data we used in writing our grant.

Include three year graduation rate on the APR data collection for community colleges.

I'm not sure how DOE can improve on this as it is one set of questions for all programs, but the 

information hardly seems relevant to a lot of our programming aspects. Some of the measures collected 

feel arbitrary, but I suppose for certain programs they are relevant.

Make it more user friendly.

The grant report itself is fine, but the online system for entering the report is a bit frustrating. The various 

layers take away the user-friendliness.

Have a yearly meeting to review the grant report sections.

Is good for me.

I could have used some targeted training opportunities in the months prior to the report deadline. I had a 

challenging time understanding how the data requested was specific to my grant. I had numerous 

exchanges with my program officer to clarify, but I felt this could have been illuminated more specifically 

in the directions for proposal, and the initial report.

LAA section is confusing

The reporting system does not show all of the answers that are entered in the expanding boxes. There

needs to be improved formatting. The budget columns do not line up with totals at the bottom and can 

cut off numbers.

I tried to copy the questions into a Word document so that I could work in Word and then copy and paste 

into the final document. However, when I began to cut and paste, I found that there were additional 

questions that appeared when you answered the initial questions. I had to answer those at the last 

minute before I submitted the document. It would be nice to have all of the questions up front.

A workshop on how to complete your the annual report
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 434

Clearer guidance regarding the language in the APR. More timely access to all questions so we have 

adequate time to prepare our reports.

Everything it fine.

Face to Face/ virtual training about reporting before the reporting process

More detailed instructions or examples would be helpful.

The budget form for the annual report has been inaccessible for several years. It is visible, but it is not 

'fillable.'

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

Can't think of anything

The support I receive from my ED staff is very helpful. I'm thankful to have [REDACTED] as my contact.

Give notice of upcoming training and other opportunities well in advance.

List serv and peer to peer contacts could be helpful for Project Director looking for additional solutions 

and ideas to improve outcomes.

Have a TA session on the APR for new grantees and those on a no cost extension.

The staff is extremely helpful.

I may, not be in a the best position to respond because I was not involved in creating the narrative and 

came in at the end of year one. Personally, I have not received any assistance, nor do I know what is 

available to me.

No suggestion.

Have more in person and virtual opportunities to receive technical assistance and connect with other 

grantees

Everyone has always been immediately responsive and helpful. No change is necessary.

The communication, collaboration, availability and access to technical staff is excellent.

The Department staff have always been readily accessible to us.

Never used technical assistance

the webinar's to review the technical assistance topics and items were helpful.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 435

The sharing of resources seems to vary from one award to another. Another Project Director colleague at 

my university received some invitations to trainings that I never received, even though I was intended as 

one of the audiences for the trainings. I'm not sure how the sharing of information is handled, but maybe 

there could be one listserv for all awardees.

Besides the instruction emails, we have not received much technical assistance.

N/A

No comments at this time

I attended a training session at the Dept. of Education that was very helpful for me. Would like to see 

that continue. I realize nothing has been normal since Covid....

No response.

No suggestions.

An annual meeting of some kind might be a good way to cross-fertilize good ideas that are effective upon 

implementation.

I think that the staff does a great job of providing guidance and has offered workshops throughout the 

year. I think they should develop a series of workshops that all programs can benefit from starting from a 

brand new program to experience programs. All workshops should be recorded and put on a website for 

people to access. There should also be a best practices /question and answer blog where every 

question/answer is saved. People could then look through it to see if there question has been answered. 

There should also be a place/dropbox where deferent programs can share resources with everyone. 

This can include videos, workshops, flyers etc.

None come to mind

My program officer, [REDACTED], is fantastic. There is never a time that I have left a communication 

with him feeling bewildered about what was just said.

Due to COVID-19, more online webinars would be useful.

The assistance provided by the Department of Education has improved tremendously. I am impressed 

on the customer service level. Remind you thou, a few years ago (4-5 yrs.), the experience with the ED 

was extremely poor. Just the fact, that someone gets back to you in less than 24 hours, most of the time 

even sooner. That is a bug plus.

I think it would be very nice if they checked in programs periodically on how they are doing by phone.

There needs to be regional resources and availability of relevant information. Also it would be helpful if 

maybe they had live chat or office hours.

An Annual 'Training' was not possible in 2020 [COVID-19 lock down; District Travel 'Out-of-State' N/A]. A 

national Title Grant Conference Call, was held in June, 2020 (I assume as the alternative available to us, 

given the COVID situation higher education was facing). Our District continues in lock-down [FY21]. The 

online Modules related to 'Managing Grant Risk' proved invaluable; I also searched for Slide PDFs and 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 436

FAQs, from the previous presentations. Grant staff were not hired by grant launch. 10 years of previous 

grant management experience in higher education; 1 year of federal [HUD-OUP].

It would be extremely helpful to participate in more webinars for Title V HSI grantees that are sponsored 

by the Department.

No, it is even fine now.

Please be specific and consistent when speaking about what's allowable and not allowable.

Please provide regular webinar trainings that are made available online and/or small cluster webinars 

that are specific to each grant. The few meetings that are available, sometimes provide information or 

details that are not specific to my grant. Having small cluster meetings that are specific to each grant 

would be less confusing and more helpful.

These things would be helpful: 1) A toolkit 2) An implementation training via webinar for new grantees 

and their Project Directors

Offer technical assistance more consistently and frequently.

I deal mainly with [REDACTED] and [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] is extremely knowledgeable and 

helpful. Not only does she know the programs well and offer excellent technical assistance, she connects 

us with each other to exchange ideas and best practices. [REDACTED] is extremely helpful too. My 

needs are always met when I reach out to both and I cannot think of any way to improve the technical 

assistance.

We had a technical assistance training in March 2020-most valuable half-day experience. I learned more 

in those few hours than I did 6 months on the job. That is the only assistance I've been aware of besides 

my very helpful program officer. I rated don't know on the options because I didn't we had all of the 

options available- webinars, peer to peer sharing options, handouts, etc... I would be grateful for any 

options on the previous page but I wasn't aware of anything besides the technical training in March.

More relevant trainings. Training on the new APR system with Q&A.

N/A

I have only seen one or two webinars geared toward DHSI grants in the past two years and they are 

typically for programs that are just beginning. More frequent training with smaller groups (where we can 

ask for specific feedback) would be much more useful. On the occasions where we have received 

invitations for in-person training, they typically come VERY last minute and require travel.

Need to respond quicker. Takes a long time for Officer to respond.

It would be nice to have annual project directors' meetings, even if in an online format.

Except for a webinar, I have never seen any of those activities offered

I used the technical assistance and was very helpfully.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 437

More webinars and more opportunities to collaborate with other grantees.

No trainings

Provide FaceTime or Zoom meetings, along with screen sharing where in sort areas.

The DHSI staff are very helpful and respond quickly to questions/concerns.

The Title V staff already are very helpful and respond to my questions in short time.

This year there was no Project Directors' meeting due to COVID-19. It would be nice to have had atleast 

had a virtual gathering, especially for new Project Directors. The only technical assistance I have 

received through the DOE is one grant award webinar, which was very helpful. More offerings would be 

good.

We really appreciate the in person meetings we have been able to have with our Program Officer. He is 

able to explain so much and we are able to hear discussions with other colleges which we can learn so 

much from.

What is your job role?

Grant, Program Manager

Grant Director

project director

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

HSI - 2020 - Q18.2. How can Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions improve the 

usefulness of the technical assistance you receive?

The response time is lacking as of lately. Not sure as to why.

Can't think of anything

Since email is the primary form of communication, it has been very useful.

Respond to requests more quickly. Also, close the feedback loop in conversations with 

grantees. Sometimes we provide requested information but receive no response at all.

Recognizing that many many requests for information and assistance are received, it is 

impressive that responses are as quick and helpful as they are. The only improvement I can 

imagine that would assist in the responsiveness is to add staff familiar with the region ( in 

person not just in statistics/demographics) . I would welcome a grant monitor visit to our state to 

help build relationship and provide context to the requests and discussions made via email.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 438

Posting questions and answers on the website.

[REDACTED] is an excellent and extremely helpful PD.

No suggestion. I do not have a picture of the 'ideal' so this question was not relevant to me. 

However, I was not provided with a 'not applicable' option.

Provide more opportunities that facilitate specific conversations related to Title V grants

No complaints.

The service we have received from the DSI staff has been excellent.

Perhaps DHSI website could expand the range of frequently asked questions (FAQs).

I have not used technical assistance thus far.

I am referring to tech assistance workshops on grant application and grant management. Very 

helpful webinars.

The level of responsiveness varies by Program Officer. Some Program Officers, like our current 

one, responds very quickly and concisely. Previous Program Officers would not respond for 

YEARS at a time. When we did receive a response after more than a year of asking and 

following-up, the response was not always coherent.

It functions just fine. We get the answers/assistance we need when we need it.

N/A

n/a

No comments at this time

None

No response.

No suggestions.

No recommendations at this time.

Better website

Nothing comes to mind, the service I have received has always been excellent.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 439

I can't think of anything at this juncture; however, more program officers should be entertained.

More online webinars.

The DHSI held a couple of HSI Directors convening in 2016, 2017, and 2018. They stopped a 

hosting these meetings a couple of years ago. I thought those trainings were great. The quality 

of these trainings were really good, allow HSI Directors to network with other institutions, and 

more importantly, allowed us to get to meet in person, and have a face to face interaction with 

out grant officers.

There was some confusion this year responding to Covid so timely response in times of 

confusion could be improved.

I don't think there is a way to measure this, given that all my experience fell under the COVID 

lockdown.

Initially, responsiveness to my emails was lagging. Now, I am experiencing a definite 

improvement in this area.

Everything looks good.

Be specific and be consistent.

Timeliness of communication can be improved, especially with project issues and inquiry. 

Provide more and clear communication/letters regarding specific legislation and policy.

Respond to e-mail request and communication in a reasonable amount of time.

When offered the technical assistance is great. I would just ask for it to be offered more 

frequently and consistently.

As I mentioned before, I receive technical assistance mainly through [REDACTED] and 

[REDACTED]. [REDACTED] is extremely knowledgeable and helpful. Honestly, I could not have 

asked for a better person to be leading the way. She knows DHSI extremely well, responds 

promptly, provides excellent customer service, and conencts grantees with each other to 

exhange ideas and best practices. [REDACTED] knows the program very well and is also 

extremely helpful. I cannot think of anything that will imporve the technical assistance other than 

training all program officers to provide a service similar to [REDACTED].

I am appreciative of the fast and clear responses we receive.

I put in a request over a year ago to have our President updated on our GAN and it's yet to be 

done. I've asked my program officer multiple times about it and nothing has changed.

Can not think of any.

It often takes two to three emails to receive a response and even then the response is usually 

very generic and not specific. When I call, there is usually a lot of confusion and not much 

willingness to listen to my specific concerns or questions. I typically need to do the research 

myself, come up with a potential solution based on my limited understanding of the regulations 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 440

and then present that solution to DHSI. This often requires explaining the relevant CFRs and 

reciting portions back in order to explain.

Need to respond in a more timely manner to questions. I have to send the same email more 

than 4 times before it is answered.

The biggest issue we encounter is lack of response to specific questions. General 

communication and technical assistance is fine.

HSI - 2020 - Q18.5. What can the Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions do to improve 

communication with you?

It would be great to have a succession of getting information. If the direct program officer does 

not respond in 'x' amount of time, then the question can be asked of another officer or manager.

Can't think of anything

As most semesters begin in Fall (August), receiving the funds mid-semester often poses 

problems to access and ability to spend out in the first year.

Provide information in a timely manner. Almost all communication seems later than it should be.

more State or even regional visits. listserv?

Communication with POs has been excellent.

The communication from the HSI program is adequate.

Maybe the information is not coming directly to me, so it is difficult for me to respond to this. It 

may be directed to the grants office in my institution. I have only received two or three emails in 

the last 13 months that I have been involved..

No suggestion.

More routine meetings with program officer and other Doed staff

Grant notification for 2020 was greatly delayed but this is COVID crazy year. Disruptions are to 

be expected.

The communication throughout the project has been clear and constant.

End the pandemic, so that we might meet each other again, in person, in Washington DC.

Communication has been fine at this point.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 441

For my existing program the communication with my prgram officer is great. For the new 

application that my institution submitted, there was stress and concern that resulted from not 

knowing the results from the 2020 grant competition.

It varies by Program Officer. Our current Program Officer is very responsive and concise, but 

one of our previous Program Officers was not responsive at all, and we only received a 

response to a question once we were moved to another Program Officer.

Communicate the new dates for APR early on would be helpful so we can prepare to have more 

availability during that time.

I think a .ed-wide program for new grant directors would be helpful. Some sort of mentoring 

program or additional guidance?

n/a

No comments at this time

Nothing

No response.

No suggestions. Satisfied.

No suggestions at this time.

Monthly newsletter. Annual convention/gathering of grant directors, program officers

Communication is fine.

[REDACTED] is fantastic.

None needed.

I think the DE is and has made the correct changes by making staff available and friendly. I 

strongly believe, the DE is the correct path.

A phone call two or three times a year.

Communication could be more directed and intentional.

Always replies quickly.

I believe I have very good communication with my DHSI Specialist at this point.

None.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 442

There was little to no communication or guidance when it came to travel or anything in relation 

to COVID. Many of us have travel credits lingering and still no guidance. I need practical, helpful 

information and guidance.

Timeliness on communication can improve, especially with a project issue or inquiry. Please 

provide more and clear communication/letters about specific legislation and policy.

Respond to e-mails. Check in with grantee occasionally.

Communicate more frequently about delays or programmatic changes.

Communication is clear and timely.

Excellent communication with the Program Officer

I very rarely receive communication via email. I received the email for this survey but I don't 

receive correspondence on a regular basis but not sure if I should be receiving communication.

It would be nice to get communication a little more regularly. The newsletter from the DoE is 

nice, maybe something with updates similar to that? If it exists already, I may have missed it.

monthly updates

We often get communication on the day of a webinar or with short notice of an upcoming 

change. The APR was way late last year and it was our first year submitting an APR, so it 

created additional stress. There was very little communication about the delay and anticipated 

availability of the new APR and there was no training on how to complete it. I also experienced a 

technical issue in which I wasn't able to submit information and had to submit a ticket, once the 

ticket was resolved I realized there was more data that needed to be provided that I was unable 

to see prior to the fix.

HSI - 2020 - Q18.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your 

program specialist?

All of these options

Does not matter. Issues never resolved.

HSI - 2020 - Q18.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process and protocols 

associated with this grant competition?

Announcing the competition on December 27 with a very short turnaround was enormously 

discouraging. I would advise the Program Office provide a solid timeframe for an estimated 

announcement. Please, no surprises.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 443

Be alerted to the due date timelines in advance (at least 6 months) so that writing of the grant is 

assessed by members of the college to proceed with a new innovative 5-year project.

Can't think of anything

Consistency from one Program Director to another. My contact is very responsive when I reach 

out, but my peers' take longer and requests other things that my contact doesn't.

Create a schedule and stick to it -- both for proposal submission and award notification.

Earlier notification of awards

For title III competition, if literature supporting promising practices is required, Please encourage 

the use of peer reviewed research outside of the what works clearinghouse. OR expand the 

articles and relevance in the clearinghouse.

Hosting multiple Q&A sessions.

I don't have any suggestion for improvement. The process is very convenient.

I don't know. I was not involved in creating the grant narrative. I took over at the end of year 1 

for a retired colleague.

I mentioned previously using better organization with subheadings in the instructions.

I think grantees need more time to complete proposals with time not conflicting with the holidays 

and a heads up for when the announcement will occur and what the competition might entail. 

Many smaller institutions and institutions that have not had a title V grant need more time and 

resources available to be competitive. The process, in its current state, puts less experienced 

institutions at a severe disadvantage.

If my PO wants to send a group email, that's fine with me. I was really tied between group or 

individual email as my preference.

Increase the budget so that more colleges, can help students achieve student success.

It would be helpful to get some updates during the review process so we would know how close 

to completion the scoring was.

Make awards sooner so that they are known before the start of the academic year. August 1 is 

likely the most effective date.

Make clear and readily available competition requirements.

Maybe providing helpful resources for completion of grant at beginning of grant, midway of 

grant, and how to prepare to finish grant.

More communication - just updates from ED as the major phases of the competition where 

transitioning from one into the other.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 444

More training ahead of time for completing the application forms.

n/a

N/A

N/A

No comments at this time

No comments.

No response.

No suggestion.

No suggestions at this time.

none

Not applicable to my role.

Nothing comes to mind.

Seriously, this last round had such promise.... we would know by the first part of July.... but alas, 

the announcement came in September. The reviewers... .seriously, a majority of the responses 

on my review made no sense. WIth this said, the one line review and minus 1 point last year 

was terrible... this was at least an improvement.

The overall process and protocols are appropriate.

The process and protocols can be complex. Nonetheless, [REDACTED] did an amazing job this 

past competition for the 2020-2021 DHSI grants.

Timeliness

Tips and strategies. Examples of funded grant applicants provided upon request.

Too soon to determine, since I am only 6 months into my first Title V Grant management 

process...

Unfortunately, I was not one of the individuals from our institution who wrote for the Grant. 

Therefore, I am unable to speak to the application process. However, as the appointed Project 

Director for the Grant, I would appreciate more webinars addressing the implementation process 

of the Grant once it has been awarded.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 445

Verification from Department of Education that materials were received and readable. One 

small error that could have been caught during submission process led to the grant submission 

being ineligible.

We continue to appreciate all e-mail solicitations associated with this grant competition.

What process exists outside of the application and APR? It's like a free for all. I think scheduled 

check-ins should be a part of the process, whether over the phone or via email.

While the overall process and protocols have already improved over the years, I advise to 

improve the new APR system with more guidelines, tools, and tips for specific sections 

(mentioned in previous responses), and improve frequency of helpful webinars and 

communication overall. I advise the Department to focus on making (front end) improvements --

training and protocol requirements for new Project Directors, information and best practices for 

obtaining data prior to APR, and frequent small cluster webinars.

Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA)

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I wish that the detailed FHDDRA application instructions available in G5 could also be linked to the 

website. I also would love to see awards added to the site at the time of the last announcements. Adding 

covid-19 announcements/travel updates that impact competitions and awards to the website would also 

be useful. The coordination with the group that does the IRB reviews might also be more transparent on 

the website. I have worked with the site for many years, so know where to look for things and I also 

know how limited staff time is. So, these are wished for! The program officer is very diligent in sending 

out videos of applicant and director webinars via email.

It is virtually impossible to find basic information-- it looks like the site was developed 20 years ago and 

never updated. FAQs that actually include information vital to program administration would be great! 

Also, FAQs targeted to specific audiences: students vs project directors, etc.

Clearer more user-friendly layout.

More regular and timely availability of information regarding upcoming grant competitions

The navigation for the DDRA award is not entirely intuitive - it can take some digging around to find the 

information I'm looking for, although it is all there. Additionally, the feel of the site is a bit outdated. The 

availability of short URL links, or easy to remember/share URLs would also be helpful for outreach 

purposes.

More historical data on the awards would be useful.

No issues with website.

Presentation of material is densely organized, bit overwhelming to navigate.

Timely updates
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 446

Post up to date information on awardees.

Would love to see the materials accessible within the G5.gov system accessible OUTSIDE of G5 (on the 

main DDRA website)

How grant reporting process could be improved?

My comments refer to the student and director reports. Sponsored Projects submits the financials and 

would have to comment on that topic. 1. The Iris interface for sending a notice to the students is always a 

little unclear as to content, so I always email separately and use it as a reminder. 2. The addition of preand post- language reviews is useful, but the pre-test comes fairly soon after the submission of the 

application and is a different format than the original language evaluation. The student arranges for the 

first application based evaluation, but the project director has to initiate the pre- and post- evaluations 

adding in the name and contact information for the professor. I understand the reasoning, but wish the 

application evaluation could be the same as the pre- post- test reviews. The standard for language 

fluency is so high in the review process that a second pre- evaluation seems a burden to the faculty. 

Some students do continuing improving their language skills before departing and it might be more 

relevant, but for near-native speakers it seems unnecessary. 3. In the student's final report on the budget 

and actual expenses there is often a little confusion on the part of the student as to how to respond. What 

extra funds should be counted? Should personal expenses be counted? A little more explanation of what 

is being asked for and how it is used might be helpful. 4. The process of updating passwords is always a 

little time consuming, but easier than G-5! 5. It would be nice to have continued access to past grants if 

one changes their email. Our university emails have changed several times since I've been a project 

director, but after investigation was told to maintain my old email in the IRIS (and G-5) systems to retain 

access to previous grants and reports.

Have a website with better functionality than IRIS currently does. Push reminders from IRIS to both 

students and project directors when parts of a report are due. Make the requirements clear-- a lot of vital 

information gets buried in grant documentation; there needs to be a separate section with a summary of 

important info

none

The IRIS system feels outdated and a bit clunky - it can be very challenging to follow correct reporting 

procedures without constantly referring to user guides and manuals. The language in the system is also 

confusing, especially as it pertains to the Pre- and Post-fellowship Language Evaluation and 

corresponding statuses.

We had major tech issues with submitting the post-fellowship language proficiency requirement.

Fewer forms/signatures required.

Need a way for Project Director to verify language evaluation completion by the assigned language 

instructor. Need updated reference user guide PDF to match current online reporting screens.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

[REDACTED] and the staff are wonderful! I do wish that the student could have a little more flexibility with 

flight reservations and changes in the volatile airline industry. The student typically submits the GAR 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 447

information as soon as available and then wants to purchase the ticket ahead of time or may purchase 

one and find a better deal. We walk them through the timing, but they often are penalized on prices and 

end up with inadequate funding for transportation.

none

Workshops for Project Directors specifically covering smaller topics/aspects of the grant would be helpful 

- such as building a compliant budget, disbursing payment/tracking use of the funds for each fellow,

preparing the human subjects/IRB narrative.

More timely communications. The application system is not intuitive and applicants are toggled back and 

forth between the program office and tech support.

Technical assistance has been very responsive.

Quicker response time.

Would like to see a peer to peer project director mentoring program and opportunities for project directors 

to exchange ideas, information, best practices, etc.

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

DDRAF - 2020 - Q29.2. How can Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Fellowships 

improve the usefulness of the technical assistance you receive?

Update the legislation wording. Schedule the competition in the fall.

Modernize the system being used.

none

A bit more flexibility around timing constraints for reporting and submitting requests for awarded 

fellows would be helpful. For example, for international travel, there are so many different 

moving parts and often times it is extremely challenging to complete a GAR 30 days before a 

fellow's departure. Additionally, responsiveness to more complex questions that require the 

attention of a program officer could be slightly faster.

This is likely COVID-related, but this year our experience with the DDRA application/award cycle 

felt disorganized. We had issues with the timeliness of responses as well as several instances 

of incorrect information, including an alternate being incorrectly informed she was a grantee and 

receiving incorrect reviewer sheets that did not match our applicants' proposals.

Sometimes the language is a bit vague and the websites are not always intuitive, and 

occasionally there are delays, or lack of clarity for specific questions and processes. But, in the 

end everything generally works out.

Very good in responding to issues.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 448

having a youtube video showing how to put the application package together would be helpful, 

especially if you don't do it often or have never submitted a package before.

DDRAF - 2020 - Q29.5. What can Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Fellowships do 

to improve communication with you?

The program officer communications are helpful. Covid-19 has created uncertainty everywhere. 

The communications this year have been responsive to the situation. We are all in a wait and 

see situation. Many students working internationally are rethinking their research projects. 

Whatever can be done to to issue no-cost extensions is helpful and to notify us when 

information is available. We plan far ahead to support students applying and would appreciate 

earlier notice of competitions, e.g. the NSF 3-year notices with deadlines are a great model.

A lot of communication happens by email, with lots of different attachments. Centralizing the 

information (on IRIS or another website) where I can access everything I need, would be 

wonderful.

Award decision notifications are often made after our students have started the academic year 

and/or have had to begin their research so in some cases, they have had to travel to the host 

country before they learn about the award. Better timing with consideration of school academic 

calendars would be helpful.

facilitate a meeting / peer-to-peer information sharing among grantees

First, I would like to commend the team on communications during the COVID crisis, as I felt 

they worked tremendously hard to make sure awarded institutions had up-to-date information, 

and continue to do so. However, the timeline on certain activities has been unclear (such as an 

orientation for new fellows for FY 2020), and updates even to reiterate delays would be helpful 

in ensuring that we haven't missed any communication.

Grant award orientations have been delayed. Of course this depends on when the funding 

comes through, but it does make it hard to plan for any fall departure.

More timely responses to concerns.

Sometimes communication is sporadic. And, probably due to high volume and a lot of variability 

with different fellows/schools, sometimes questions aren't answered or information is not entirely 

clear. But, usually everything is resolved as needed. Some of the websites and/or 

handbooks/informational material are not very user-friendly or intuitive. Written materials are 

often weighed down in a lot of legal language and it can be easy to miss key functional details.

Timely notification of award. One year we received less than 24 hours notice to respond with 

signed forms when we had grantees scattered around the globe, some in remote areas.

Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 449

It would be great if there were more COVID-19 related guidance re: students experiencing 

homelessness.

Advertise or train how we as state coordinators, can utilize the website.

Topic Briefs

N/A

na

It would be nice to have a section that highlights any new resources, updates, or guidance.

No comment.

I have found hat I need at NCHE and have not used the OSES site.

n/a

I wonder if it would be helpful to users to have regional sections (as in regional US). This may enable 

easier access to people who land on the site looking for state specific info? Just a thought.

I always remind the 'upper' staff/Assistant Commissioners, Directors of ALL disenfranchised students and 

McKinney-Vento is not mentioned other than NCHE/National Technical site.

in the past year, searches have resulted in NCLB legislation and other out-of-date info

If I am looking for guidance, it usually regarding a specific topic. The website is more general.

Improve search capabilities

I don't know. It is just so hard to find anything.

I use the site often and do not currently have any recommendations.

I can't think of anything specific.

I am relatively new to my position, but all the information I have needed has been easier accessed.

NCHE has number of broken links that have not been updated in some time now and this is quite 

problematic.

How grant reporting process could be improved?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 450

It would be helpful if reporting requirements for SY19-20 were modified due to the impact of COVID-19 

and distance learning.

It's fine

NA

I need more specific information about the process and how the information is used.

Additional webinars, tool and resources would be helpful.

To clarify my responses, the updates provided each year about data requirement changes is very helpful 

for understanding what is required. The program office is not directly involved in the submission of the 

data, however. We provide input when additional information is needed. However, other than that, we are 

not currently involved. Hopefully that internal process will change soon.

No comment.

Data is reported by another office. By the time I see it it is two or three years old and not particularly 

helpful.

n/a

n/a

It's fine.

Colleagues assist with the reporting requirements for our dept. - I do not have any suggestions at this 

time

No specific feedback. Most of the work from this end is done by our data branch so they may be better 

suited to give specifics.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

More technical assistance related to supporting students experiencing homelessness during the COVID19 pandemic.

it's fine

NA

Set Zoom meetings with regional peers facilitated by NCHE. I would like these to be set up on a 

bimonthly basis on a set date so that it could be on our calendars as a set date, day, time. Once things 

get going all our calendars fill up so quickly that it is very hard to fit in something so knowing; for example 

that the third Monday of every even month at 2:00 CTS there would be this opportunity would be helpful. 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 451

Also there could be a theme to the meeting so NCHE could have a short presentation to give info and 

then a chance for peers to contribute.

Opportunities for individual check-in meetings would be great. This is one on one time would be great. 

Maybe this could occur on quarterly basis.

Have not asked department staff for technical assistance.

I have used NCHE not US ED program staff.

I haven't received any technical assistance from the Department staff except to change the name of the 

grant award.

The TA that the dept offers is outstanding

You guys are outstanding in tech assistance. You always respond quickly and professionally. You are 

quick to respond and always in a friendly and positive manner. I can't thank you enough as i work with 

other federal programs that are highly needing of your expertise in this area.

Honestly, I rarely use TA from the Department. I have been in this position for a while, so I know the nuts 

and bolts of MV. When I need more specific information, I usually access NCHE or SHC resources. I 

was disappointed that the Department did not provide more guidance and resources for COVID-19. It 

was the first place I looked for resources, but found little. I had to wing it.

I thought USED was to provide two in-person conferences per year. The February meeting is great, but 

they try to fold us into the NAEHCY conference for the second one. We are really not provided a specific 

time for state coordinators TA and peer-to-peer sharing (other than a half day). And we are pulled in too 

many directions with the other conference and many of our liaisons being there, to use it as time to 

collaborate with our peers. Would love to have more 'do's and don'ts' on LEA level grant activities. 

More specific best practices at the local level to drive student success.

I would like to see training resources that could be shared to train all school staff

There are so many gray areas in this work. Sometimes we need specific, pointed statements to enable 

us to move people who may be barriers to full student support. I realize that there are not always black 

and white responses in these cases. 'Cliff notes' version of sections of the law - with bullet points for 

individual topics may be helpful. We provide this from our end, but using USDE as a resource always 

carries more weight.

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

NCHE

AIR

Assistance with statewide TA provided to LEA McKinney-Vento Liaisons.

[REDACTED]
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 452

National Center for Homeless Education

National Center for Homeless Education

National Center for Homeless Education, YHDP TA providers

NCHE

NCHE

NCHE

NCHE

NCHE

NCHE

NCHE

NCHE

NCHE - This is always my go to. If I can't find resources online, I can contact them either by email or 

phone and get a response quickly. I trust them and work well with them.

NCHE and NDTAC

NCHE staff

NCHE.

readiness and emergency management for schools TAC & NCHE

What is your job role?

Ed. Specilaist

Homeless Education State Coordinator

Program Specialist

state coordinator

Education Innovation and Research Programs
Final Report

2020 453

Department of Education Office of Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey 

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Make the menu bar options across the main page dropdowns to help preview the categories that fall 

under Programs, Grantees and Applicants, etc. and reduce user need to check each page for the 

information they're seeking.

I've only used the G5 site

add a content outline or side/top menus for easier navigation. add more visuals/graphics.

Haven't used the site much in my current experience on EIR. Communicating more regularly what 

resources are available on the web site would be helpful.

Some of the top Google search results for the Department go to dead webpages. The menu system is a 

little confusing.

Still need more visuals and less government lingo. Pretty heavy on education lingo as well. Work on 

'translating' narratives to be more understandable and accessible.

I honestly am not sure how to answer this question. I almost always access needed information with a 

search, not starting at the Department's homepage. I fell into this pattern before the re-design.

I have not interacted much with it

Continuing to add resources for this changing time and how we can relate to this with our grants

The G5 site could improve by changes so that a novice user better understands what is there, why it's 

there and how it relates to the management of the grant.

The website is helpful when seeking information to help guide the preparation of an application. It 

would be helpful to have a website to support grantees.

I have never visited the website and do not know how it can serve the needs of my grant or my team.

n/a

Often it is difficult to even locate the landing page. At times there were two working landing pages. I 

would suggest once that is clear, make the navigation pages clear and when possible limit text on a 

page.

Since I am familiar with the site I can easily navigate it. For new users , it might be helpful to have the 

first page with visual graphics for selection of grant information.

I am sorry but I have not yet been to the new website.

I think the website is user friendly, but because of the amount of information on the page it can somewhat 

difficult to navigate.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 454

Less clicks needed to find grant information.

Adding contact information for program staff would be really helpful. Also, the information doesn't always 

seem quite up to date.

It would be nice to have the annual report available for download to be able to prepare in advance.

It's very text heavy. Always provide a visual of where in the site we are.

Information had moved and was hard to locate, specifically the information regarding awarded projects.

Provide more 'how to' information for grantees. How to complete the APR for example.

How grant reporting process could be improved?

N/A

We are in our first year and haven't had to turn in reports yet.

more transparency on data use, provide analysis on collected reports, request data that are easily 

accessible

Unknown at this time as we have not submitted our first annual report (due in November)

Increase user-interface/user-friendliness of G5 site. It would also be great to better understand what 

USED does with reported data and to see an aggregate of data across projects.

We have not yet had to write a report on our project process. However, we have also not received 

deadlines or an overview of when the first reports are due and what they will entail!

Continue to review communications, with an additional emphasis on clarity... especially in light of covidrelated impact on programs/evaluations.

An example report and access to the full reporting templates as early as possible

As a first timer going through the process it seems straight forward and easy to handle. I may have more 

information to give as we continue in the process.

I don't know yet...I have not had to file an annual performance report. This fall will be my first time.

Provide a longer window of time especially if the window of time includes major holidays. Last year it was 

due the week after Thanksgiving and was released on 11/13/2019. It's hard to coordinate with staff from 

various offices to pull together the information, especially if they take extra vacation during that time.

Improve online system. I lost work that I had already completed when submitting last year's report.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 455

Easier, faster, more clarity in what to report and how the information is used. In G5, reporting each goal 

takes forever and sometimes data is not saved - you need to go into each goal individually to edit/make 

sure it's complete/etc and it takes substantial time.

Providing APR instructions earlier would better allow us to plan, prepare, and execute our annual reports.

I have not completed this yet, so cannot provide feedback at this point.

I think it should be more closely linked to the evaluation process. If the evaluation team is measurements 

a metric it should also be on the APR . I found that training on these should be mandatory for early phase 

grantees.

The performance metrics are rather tricky to interpret sometimes.

I don't really know how the data is used--so far we have only submitted annual reports.

I think the reporting process is sufficient.

If we could streamline how we report progress and have some sort of template. Additionally, it would be 

helpful to learn how other programs are progressing as well.

There were some forms that had to be submitted piecemeal. It felt like a bit like unnecessary complexity, 

but I understand if that's because it makes document sorting easier on the backend.

We are supposed to upload it to the G5 system, but then there isn't a place to upload every document 

that we are required to submit. I end up sending them in an e-mail to the program officer. But then that 

position turns over and the new program officer thinks our APR was incomplete. If we are going to be 

required to submit APRs through the G5 system, it needs improvement.

I have not completed any reporting to date.

Make user friendly and give feedback

Program year doesn't correspond to academic year.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

More support opportunities targeting programmatic elements and Q&A related to the grant requirements 

from ED staff. I look forward to the Project Directors Meeting in October for some of this. Abt's technical 

assistance related to the evaluation has been excellent with regular calls and timely email responses to 

inquiries.

We've had 3 program officers in less than a year. Our current program officer is [REDACTED] and she's 

been very responsive since assigned to our team.

TA connections with peers, more 1-1 consulting geared towards grantee program implementation and 

tackling problems of practice
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 456

We've had minimal experience to date as an Early Phase grant currently in our pilot year. We are looking 

forward to the Convening in October which will provide more opportunity to work with department staff.

The few webinars I have received information on have either focused heavily on the evaluation portion of 

the project (and our independent evaluation team attends those) or the content is not something of use to 

me in our project. I just registered for our first annual virtual technical assistance conference and was 

EXTREMELY disappointed in the session choices. Of 18 sessions, there is only one that I think may be 

useful. Again, these sessions were heavily oriented to the evaluation aspects of the project and not the 

management of projects or sharing of ideas.

The most recent previous regional session (e.g. the September 2019 EIR Workshop) was a good 

example of positive support. The upcoming virtual Directors' & Evaluators' Technical Assistance Meeting 

has the potential to provide similar positive support. If possible, the frequency of such meetings could be 

increased.

Beyond evaluation TA (which has been great) we have not engaged in any TA activities, but look forward 

to the convening!

Due to changes in last year's programming and meeting schedule I feel we may not have received this 

training as soon as we would have liked due to our quarantine. However, I am looking forward to our Oct 

sessions and believe we will leave with a wealth of knowledge on all above topics.

I have not yet had to access much in the way of technical assistance from the Department. The October 

directors conference will be my first experience.

I'm not sure I know what the staff offers other than my interaction with our program officer who is 

excellent. I do really enjoy the Project Directors meetings. I think it is a very valuable experience and look 

forward to it each year. The ED staff does an excellent job!

In the two years that I have been an EIR grantee, our program officer changed 7 times. More consistency 

in program staff would be helpful.

It is nearly nonexistent, and when I do see anything it is very infrequently relevant or able to be engaged 

with.

More webinars and trainings on: project management, developing and maintaining relationships with 

school districts, strategies for providing coaching to teachers as part of the intervention, responding to 

COVID, taking your intervention online, putting together conference symposia and other dissemination 

efforts, the EIR program itself disseminating information about studies widely on a national stage, etc. 

Our TA at Abt Associates is WONDERFUL and incredibly helpful to our evaluation! We'd be lost without 

her.

n/a

None at this time.

Start training as soon as the grant award period begins.

The evaluation TA is excellent. I have not had the need to use any other TAs.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 457

There doesn't seem to be clear communication between evaluation technical assistance group and the 

program officer. We are being asked or guided to report, track or collect data differently but we when 

explain it to the program officer, they have know idea what decisions are being made or what changes 

are occurring due to evaluation criteria.

We are in our 4th year of our grant and the technical assistance has dropped dramatically since we 

received the grant. In the first year, we had monthly check ins with our grant officer and there were a 

number of professional development opportunities. There has been almost nothing in the last two years. 

I am looking forward to the conference next week for the resources I expect to learn about.

We have the opportunity and learn from others. The technical assistance that the Department provides 

meets our needs.

We would appreciate more opportunities to interact with other grantees who have similar projects.

Webinars are just hard to adjust pace in (no one's fault). Something more interactive helps.

Work throughout the year with us on sustainability planning, not just during the Directors meeting and/or 

with our external evaluation team.

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

Abt

Abt Assoc. for tech assistance with our research and evaluation model

Abt Associates

ABT Associates

Abt Associates

Abt Associates

Evaluation

One of the regional labs sent info on a webinar on rural schools, and I attended that. It was pretty good. 

That's it!

REL Appalachia

What is your job role?

researcher

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

2020 458

Department of Education Office of Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey 

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Make more ready-availability of law, regulations, and guidance on English learner requirements.

The website is a repository of long documents that are not always providing the answers to specific 

questions. Maybe organizing the information in smaller units and more focused topics will help.

Responsiveness needs to be improved. Since it takes so long to get any feedback, I have stopped 

emailing any questions.

Have up-to-date resources

I would like to see more information, more guidance on private schools for title III. Especially more 

targeted guidance on a state monitoring process of district using title money. Especially with the blurry 

lines of What is civil rights related and what is ESEA related- beyond A-3 of the consolidated guidance.

n/a

More current information

Provide more resources for SEAs to help provide technical assistance to LEAs and resources or links to 

resources for LEAs looking for LIEP ideas. Possibly have a community of practice for Title IIIA directors 

and specialists? What is the difference between the following websites where information can be found 

on English learners and their education: OELA, NCELA, USED/OCR, and OESE? It might be helpful to 

have all the information housed centrally where schools, LEAs, and SEAs could find support. Thank you.

Better and stronger guidance around translation, interpretation, serving ELs who waive services, 

scheduling especially for those ELs who are dually identified.

I have not used the website very much yet. From what I can see right now, it looks great and easy to 

navigate. Thank you for doing this as the previous site was very difficult to navigate.

There is a lot of content and if you don't know specifically what you are looking for, it's a lot to wade 

through.

Searching is sometimes difficult because different terms are used or things are buried. More search 

terms and redundancy for information links could be helpful.

Make it less of a long list of resources.

Old links are still up and it's heard to find things.

N/A

How grant reporting process could be improved?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 459

Not change the reporting items each year.

n/a

This is handled by another department at the agency, although, sometimes, the instructions in the 

documents for the reporting elements could provide more clarity. For instance, the program models for 

Title III LIEPs don't always coincide with state program models, and not all programs have dedicated 

'Title III only teachers'. Fitting the reality into the reporting pigeon holes can be challenging. Providing 

additional clarity or scenarios might help. Thank you.

no ideas

Put greater emphasis on the importance of using data collection, analysis, and reporting to support SEA 

and LEA level staff with State and Local EL decision-making related to grants management, monitoring, 

and implementing professional learning activities rather than solely to satisfy a Federal reporting 

requirement. Data divisions should also be finding ways to display data collected in user friendly formats 

for SEA program staff to utilize and share with program staff (e.g., Data Dashboards)

Some of the responses to the data don't make sense such as comparing enrollment of the October count 

to students who participated in the ELP assessment. That is like apples and oranges. We don't have the 

same students in October as we do in January when we test. Also, some of the data responses seem 

to be incorrect in some instances. The percentage differences to be 'justified' at times seem to be 

calculated incorrectly.

Continued explanation of changes appreciated. Possible advisory group to explore impact of proposed 

changes before they are made, including new data fields that might be needed, reporting timeline and 

adjustments.

was glad to receive the award notification early enough in the summer of 2020 to be able to allocate to 

districts final allocations (instead of estimates and having to re-allocate at a later date once we get the 

actual award).

Improve descriptions and/or narrative in directions.

N/A

N/A

Several of the reports do not provide helpful information to the program. Off hand, I immediately think of 

the number of years in Title III programs report.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

I accidentally entered this information in the previous section regarding the ED website. 

Responsiveness needs to be improved as timely response is critical in our work, but often times it takes 

too long or there are no responses. Therefore, I stopped emailing USED.

Trainings for state directors and virtual meetings to provide necessary guidance.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 460

Provide opportunities.

n/a

I do not believe that staff is always aware of these opportunities. Better communication about TA

Currently, the technical assistance consists of responses to individual emails and webinars provided at 

non USED venues (EL SCASS or NAELPA) to share information. During the pandemic, the technical 

assistance was delayed such that it was challenging to be relevant. Our agency has not received support 

in using evidence-based practices or developing resources. If the department staff could provide the 

'attributes' mentioned previously, that would certainly help SEA program staff. The Title III modules were 

advertised recently, but we're not sure the information was pre-ESSA or post-ESSA. Creating 

opportunities for communities of practice would be very helpful. Even collaborating with Title I for 

coordination of services to ELs and their families.

Where there is not a specific citation of law, state the interpretation of the department.

Periodic check-ins, proactive States vary greatly in terms of demographics, state and local resources. 

Technical assistance needed by one state may be very different from what's needed in another. Much 

more limited staffing in smaller state SEAs to carry out the same requirements, even though there are far 

fewer students.

I must have missed these forms of TA, as I am not familiar with this occurring.

More EL expertise and quicker more detailed responses are always appreciated,

Always appreciate having USDOE staff share updates during webinars and virtual calls

Resources for LEAs with very few ELs.

Implement a mentor/mentoree program to assist new State Directors/Coordinators of Title III, Part A. This 

would obviously require buy-in from experienced/veteran Title III, Part A Directors/Coordinators but it 

would be tremendously helpful.

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

REL West

Region 2 Comprehensive Center

WestEd and RELWest

Region 11

West ED, MAC.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 461

Comprehensive Center

Comprehensive Center T4PA

Comprehensive center assistance

What is your job role?

State Associate Superintendent

Program Manager

Director of Federal Programs Finance.

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

TITLEIII - 2020 - Q39.5. Think about services offered in the previous year to support your 

State’s implementation of your Title III grant. What services provided by the Department 

have been most helpful or effective? Please cite specific examples.

Updated guidance

The Title III Q&A of May 18 was helpful, but not timely.

N/A

When I reach out, the service is fabulous, but I would like to see more opportunities for states to 

reach in collectively to address some of the challenges that we all face. I would like to see more 

guidance pertaining to private schools.

Peer learning opportunities. ED presentations at conferences are very helpful. NCELA has been 

a helpful.

publication of non-regulatory guidance participation at the CCSSO SCASS meetings

Webinars.

email responses; conference webinars, new website is helpful

webinars

Non-regulatory guidance is very clear and specific. Refer to it regularly. NCELA webinars and 

website seem to be improving a lot. US ED website seems to be better organized and current.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 462

Although all of the above have the potential to be helpful and effective, the Dear Colleague 

letters have been the most helpful.

Webinars that include opportunities to ask questions directly of Department staff.

The community of practice opportunities are helpful for collaboration across states. The 

webinars are informative. We appreciate your time and energy!

calls and technical assistance documents.

Guidance, FAQ

Webinars and non-regulatory guidance

Written guidance

TITLEIII - 2020 - Q39.6. How can the Department’s services be improved over the next 

year to better meet the needs of your State as you implement your Title III grant?

Please cite specific examples.

Assist states in finding acceptable solutions to critical issues related to COVID-19 and distance 

learning

Be more proactive and timely.

Be more timely

In the past, there has been Title III specific meetings run by USED. It was very helpful when 

SEA Title III directors were able to meet to hear about Title III-specific information from ED and 

had opportunities to network. Additionally, when specific questions are emailed to USED, timely 

response is critical and it definitely needs to be improved.

More contact and guidance

More guidance, more examples, I'd love to see an allowable expense hotline... where I can just 

say... hey. I have have a district that... has this situation, what are your thoughts and then also 

align it to my own state law and such to better assure what is allowable. There are many 

situations that we experience where I feel like the water is muddy and you are not sure how you 

should look at it. Think about expenses through all lenses... example...translation and 

interpretation... what's allowable for instruction, family, professional development... I see nothing 

pertaining to professional development- which makes sense, but a lot pertaining to family, title III 

activities and nothing for paying someone to translate in the classroom or for materials...I would 

like some more concrete examples. It's just an example.

More specific responses to questions in a more timely fashion.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 463

more webinars

N/A

opportunities for peer learning, collaboration calls, grantee meetings, communities of practice, 

evidence-based resources to share with LEAs, best practices for using immigrant funds, 

differences between programs in large vs smaller EL population LEAs, support in LEA budget 

review processes, support LEAs with program planning, etc.

Prepare guidance more quickly for SEAs to be able to share with their LEAs

Provide us with an update on the current structure of the Department, the Title III Program, and 

NCELA and how it's organized to support SEAs and LEAs in meeting the needs of ELs and their 

families/communities.

States request information and support regarding real issues and the responses received are 

sometimes not helpful because they have been crafted by attorneys. One major area that 

comes to mind is identification, assessment, and reclassification of ELs with disabilities. States 

receive information from OCR but in many instances it is not helpful in respect to real children in 

real schools.

There never seems to be sufficient time when we do have webinars. The guidance is not always 

as clear as it needs to be, especially when circumstances changed rapidly as they did the past 

few months dealing with COVID and the implications for guidance.

Timeliness is a concern, Often the field has to move forward before information comes from the 

top. This is a concern that impacts all aspects of the work. We realize some of it cannot be 

avoided but ask that procedures be reevaluated for more timely responses to changes, 

enquiries and requests.

Would appreciate FAQ documents as well please

Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships program

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Overall, I think the website is fine. It just took me a long time to really feel comfortable navigating through 

it -- bit of a steep learning curve. The only improvement that immediately comes to mind would be to 

change the way the 'View Submitted Reports' feature works. Right now, you click on a submitted report 

and it's one long, giant document. Any way to more easily navigate to different screens on the report? 

Understand, this is not a huge problem, just a thought that I've had several times when hunting and 

pecking for a bit of information that I need to find from an old report.

I've never used the web site or even realized there were resources there I could be using. I don't recall it 

ever being mentioned by anyone I've interacted with.

The simple logo/header made me think for a long time that I wasn't finding the 'official' site. The layout is 

not particularly intuitive, however most of the time I can find what I'm looking for.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 464

The IFLE system is difficult to use. It would be nice if we could bulk upload a spreadsheet of outreach 

activities instead of having to make hundreds of entries by hand.

It can be difficult to navigate between programs and to find up-to-date information.

What I use most is iris.ed.gov. This site is generally fine, but I don't like the length of PDF pages (when I 

try to keep record via the PDF version). Also it is painfully time consuming to choose my university 

(campus) from the very long dropdown menu. I have to do it twice for creating entries for each student.

The ED web site seems to have layers of information that have just been continually added overtime so 

it's hard to know what it current and what might be outmoded.

Include Program Administration Manual on the website rather than a separate document. Create an 

Program Administration FAQ section to the website. Have a map for FLAS granting institutions.

I am not a web designer but sometimes I feel there may be a lot on one row making the print very small

on a laptop.

Make the program handbook more easily searchable on the site Lay out the regulations in a way that I 

can direct students to when the students do not trust me that I am properly enforcing regulations from the 

Department of Education

Honestly have not used the website much.

The FLAS website is adequate but it is very visually appealing.

n/a

Making it more user friendly and visually appealing. One has to make several clicks to find the 

information.

No real complaints, but some pages are sometimes out of date.

No suggestions. I am a new FLAS administrator on my campus. I did not need to use the FLAS website 

or IRIS this year, but I will need to do so next year.

No thoughts.

Real time updates of information, especially of current staff at grantee institutions.

I have no suggestions

Provide more information about other grantees.

I really haven't had occasion to use the website.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 465

The website has been so clunky and outdated in the past, I have not used this entire grant cycle. Instead, 

I look to the Program Administration Manual and ask the program officer or my colleagues when I have a 

question.. or the IRIS help desk, if I'm working on grant reports.

Menus are too hierarchical (you have to dig through too many submenus to navigate where you want), 

information out of date, frequently used program administration resources hard to find or not on website, 

search hard to customize

Works well

a more user-friendly website and more lead time on grant applications -- the norm in academia is 6 

weeks time to prepare applications.

No specific recommendation, really. I'm satisfied with the website in terms of content, look, ease of 

navigation.

I'm not sure if IRIS is included in this question. I was thinking of IRIS mainly when I answered, because I 

rarely go on the general Department of Education website. Sometimes IRIS has not saved my 

responses, which is frustrating. It's also confusing that in IRIS there are still questions about things that 

aren't priorities anymore.

I admit that I don't use the website often, so I don't have any recommendations at this time.

I think the website is user-friendly. My only suggestion is to create a COVID-related FAQ, since COVID 

has affected so many aspects of FLAS and where students can study and what needs to be done, for 

instance, to get an online course approved.

Making sure we follow all government regulations can be challenging to research, for example, about 

allowable costs, since they're often quite complex. I understand that ED or IFLE is often not responsible 

for these regulations, and the FAQs and PAM are very helpful for many questions. Still, I find that I must 

still occasionally dig into the weeds of regulations to try to find answers, so perhaps additional simplified 

information about these kinds of questions could be helpful to synthesize policy details.

I haven't used it, but other staff probably have. I only use the IRIS grant portal.

I do not really use the website. Instead, I rely on the Program Administration Manual for administering the 

program.

I do not always remember the URL for the FLAS program. When I go to the main US Ed site I can't easily 

find the FLAS and other Title VI program. If there could be a clearer path that would be great.

making it easier to find things and upload information

Expand the FAQ for FLAS fellowships (to better inform applicants) .

I have never used the website. If I have questions, I email the program officer.

I think the Department is doing a good job with the website.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 466

More intuitive pathways and menus for searching for information

The IFLE staff are wonderful to work with -- they remain a trusted resource to us grantees. You can tell 

that they are extremely dedicated to the projects under their care -- and seem to effortless balance the 

fine line between providing judicious oversight and compliance governmental policies and regulations, 

and delivering thoughtful service and guidance to center staff.

Everything looks the same and it is not always cross referenced as well as it could be. So while I might 

find a the page that has the information I am looking for, if I don't bookmark that page, it can be had for 

me to find the information again.

Navigation menu could be better streamlined. FAQs posted prominently.

I think a list of FAQ's for FLAS would be great (if it doesn't exist already). I'd assume that many FLAS 

coordinators may be asking our Program Officers the same questions.

Better word-search engine would help.

In an overall sense, the website is easy to navigate. The site is well-structured.

I typically only really use the IRIS system for reporting and data information. I don't typically interact with 

the website.

I like the look of the website, but searching is sometimes difficult. I'm sure it is a matter of what I call it vs 

what the Department calls it. There may already be a guide out there on on searching tips (and I just 

didn't see it) - if not a help guide for searching the site would be helpful.

By tailoring specific web pages for FLAS-related information, with all possible Q&A. A website that you 

could bookmark for all relevant materials on FLAS that's applicable for FLAS recipients and FLAS 

coordinators.

Clearly showing what is available and dates (not solely in FY format)

More secure login. MFA or 2FA.

Please make sure to have updated materials and relevant live links.

System for access is baroque

How grant reporting process could be improved?

I am not involved in that process. I only handle the reporting for the FLAS awards themselves.

It can be difficult to make students and/or faculty complete surveys. Also, as I know others have pointed 

out, entering data in the IFLE website is not easy or clear.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 467

It would be very helpful to have text boxes for each FLAS awardee to write a short narrative about their 

experience with the FLAS award.

Perhaps, if I get to see reports (even some little portions) from other institutions, I will know how to 

improve our reports.

IRIS is not the most user friendly format. You have to complete some aspects for others to be advanced, 

but it's unclear. An example might be carry forward funding and. budget prefills from the interim report 

that carry forward into the final report. You have to update the actual final expenditures under student 

admin to complete the budget section. It's also unclear how final/interim status affects a language 

instructors ability to evaluate a student's post proficiency.

This may not need any change. For summer language instructors outside the US sometimes need 

following up a number of times to provide a good report on student performance.

Stagger the Fall reporting deadline so it does not fall at the same time as the NRC reports are due

Sometimes IRIS is a bit clunky. For example, one year my reports un-submitted without prompting, and I 

had to recontact 10 students to resubmit their reports after the end of the school year.

The PMFs are submitted by grantees, so it should be easy to provide reporting data. It is not clear how 

this information is used by ED.

n/a

It would be useful to receive feedback regarding the reports and know how the Department is using the 

data different Centers report.

A workshop or website FAQs to clarify any updates/orient people with limited experience of reporting, to 

be made available sufficiently in advance of the reporting deadline (eg. August for October deadline 

reports).

No thoughts.

Grantees would like a summary analysis of the full set of data from IRIS both overall as the FLAS 

program and summaries of the different areas (i.e. South Asian Studies, Latin American Studies, etc. . ). 

This would be useful for grantees in interacting with their administrations and in the recruitment of 

students and faculty.

I have no suggestions

Not clear on how useful some data collected would be. It would be helpful to know how the information 

would be used.

Improve the report forms on the web to make it easier to select among languages, institutions.

Many times certain aspects of the grant reporting process can be interpreted differently by different 

centers within our institution-- the resource leveraging screen is one such aspect. The data mining 

requires to come up with these figures is incredibly cumbersome, as there is no central/internal way of 

tracking this information at our university. As a result, only what we manage to unearth is reported. 

Additionally, we were told by our program officer that in the grants to students and faculty section, we 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 468

shouldn't include any federal funding received by faculty-- which is not stated anywhere on the page in 

IRIS. It seems like that would mean everyone else is reporting their federal grants such as Fulbright, 

Boren, etc, which makes me hesitant to not include ours. This one aspect of the grant reporting process 

takes me hours upon hours to try and tackle, and it always feels like a loss because I never know how 

much of the real picture I'm reporting on, while another center at our institution pretty much skips this 

section entirely! Additionally, it seems almost cruel to ask students who graduated in May or August 

what their professional career track is in September, to make the Oct 15 deadline. I would love it if we 

could report on the previous year's graduates. Especially in these trying times, I am dreading writing to 

our recent grads with this question.

Guidance given is very basic and focuses more on how to input information, not what to input, common 

problems, in particular for more narrative portions

My experience with reporting specifically for the Foreign Language and Area Studies reports has been 

wonderful! Additionally, any question I have had has always been promptly and adequately answered by 

our program officer, which is greatly appreciated. There was a small technical complication one of the 

language instructors experienced as they were not initially able to receive the email prompt to login for 

the language evaluation. However, the help desk has always been very prompt and helpful as well. 

Thank you all for such great support!

Often instructions are stated in more than one place, but with conflicting or non-clarifying variations -- we 

need identical instructions in non-bureaucratic language.

The process works fine now. To date, we have had no issues with the requirements.

The process is very frustrating. I spend weeks gathering data to report and then putting it in IRIS, but we 

never receive feedback. There is an automated confirmation email when it's submitted, and that's all. Is 

anyone even looking at this data? What do they think of it? Do they think it reflects our work? I don't know 

any of these things. I feel there is an emphasis on quantitative data, but the numbers we are counting 

don't always help us get in depth on what is working and what isn't. I don't know if this is a flaw in our 

performance measurements or in the reporting requirements. So, you could improve the process by 

reading our reports, and then telling us what you think - would you prefer to see different data? Are there 

certain things that stand out to you? Also, in IRIS the wording is so vague that I don't often understand 

what I am supposed to be reporting on. For example, in project or event reporting, it asks 'Was the 

project deliverable(s) used and/or institutionalized by the beneficiaries?' Well, what do you mean by that? 

If people attended a webinar, can we respond yes? Or are we supposed to be following up to see if 

people are using our professional development afterwards? You also ask if a project was specifically for 

heritage learners, though that is no longer a priority. Why? You ask for country... well maybe that is 

applicable to scholarships or other things, but for language learning it's too specific since languages don't 

really have borders. What is the difference between a 'broadcast event' and a 'technology-based 

activity'? This is so redundant. I just don't feel like I even understand what you want to see in these 

reports, I don't know what you think of what we submit, and whether it serves any purpose.

It would be helpful to have more specific information as to how the reporting data is used, to have a 

clearer idea of the value and impact of the work that goes into gathering all that data. It is very timeconsuming for us.

IRIS is not very user-friendly.

The biggest challenges I encounter are with obtaining some of the information needed for the report, 

such as enrollment and salary data—which are ultimately challenges stemming from my own institution's 

structures rather than from IFLE. I wonder if perhaps sharing resources on the IFLE website or PAM 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 469

about how other institutions pull grant reporting data could be useful for strategizing and for training new 

staff who join our centers and need guidance on collecting report data.

For all of the areas that I marked as less than excellent, that is only to indicate that I think they could 

probably always be better. I otherwise have no complaints about the reporting process. It has seemed 

straight-forward, and I fully support the rationale for what's there.

I am sorry, I filled the prior screen out thinking also about the National Resource Center reporting 

process. I tried to go back and adjust my answers, but this survey will not allow me to go back. The FLAS 

reporting process is very clear and straightforward.

Some priorities from prior cycles still appears in the IRIS instructions, but were not part of this cycles 

priorities. References still appear to the previous cycle. I know it takes a lot of work with OMB to update 

the reporting platform, but it would be great for there to be some explanation of how to deal with this 

disjuncture somewhere.

better explaining the criteria

I suggest IFLE sets a few PMFs that are applicable to all grantee institutions instead of asking institutions 

to set their own PMFs (i.e. number of high school teachers participating in content and pedagogy 

workshops, number of students served (based on participating teachers' course enrollments per year); 

number of events (lectures, conferences, etc) in partnership with MSI and Community Colleges and total 

number of participants in said events; etc.) I believe this will provide better data to IFLE for their own 

internal purposes.

It is sometimes difficult to get students to submit their reports. It would be helpful if the reporting process 

was not as dependent on their portion.

Simplify the pre and post evaluations. It is currently very long and if an instructors has many students 

with FLAS it is a big problem.

-Provide examples of completed reports, explanation of how different institutions can gather this data -

Cleaner presentation of data and easier submission process (i.e. Excel spreadsheets or written reports

as attachments, rather than inputing one data point at a time).

Not sure...

The main issue is with IRIS. It can be difficult to use and save information. It would be nice if there was 

the ability to upload a spreadsheet for Outreach using a template like there is for the courses.

Parts of the site are out of date.

The 'help' pages could be more detailed. In the annual reports, we are required to list the relevant 

degree programs. It is a long list; In some years, the data can be imported from previous reports, like 

with courses. In some years, that function has not been available. I'd like to see that functionality every 

year.

Allow universities to tailor report data to the data available to us internally re: graduates, student 

placements, etc.

At this point I don't see any scope for improvement. You do an outstanding job. Thank you.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 470

Consultation with awardees abut what might be more meaningful data to collect. Providing a budget 

template for the attached budget (also in the proposal process). Option to upload outreach spreadsheet 

rather than manual entry.

Data collection is very time-consuming and labor-intense. If there is any way DoEd can reduce the data 

collection and reporting requirements, it would be great.

Giving access to both consortium partners (not just the lead), on what to include in the reports would be 

helpful. In my institution, we are not the lead partner, so we are not given access to the exact data we 

need until we consult with our consortium partner.

Grant report does not provide opportunities to explain the work accomplished. an exemplary activity 

section would help.

I honestly cannot think of any necessary improvements.

i think IRIS works pretty well, tbh

I'm not really sure if there are many things that could be done. Because we are dealing with FLAS we 

are working with students and instructors to submit their reports before the institutional report can be 

submitted and these are typically the biggest hurdles I see with the reporting.

No improvements needed on FLAS reporting. NRC reporting (degree description length) could be 

updated and improved.

Please update the reference guide PDFs so that they match the current version of the online forms.

Some of the data is difficult to obtain that is required for the reports. The data has to be pulled from 

several places and collection is reliant on others including questions to help us report.

The evaluation criteria for language before and after FLAS seems not very accurate by language learning 

standards at the university-level.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

I'm not aware of any technical assistance beyond the conference calls that were held this year to deal 

with the changes because of COVID.

Having more live webinars where we can ask questions or give feedback would be great.

I think you are doing a great job. Our program officer is extremely responsive and helpful and the 

technical assistance information is clear and helpful.

I have always received answers to our questions and the support needed.

I can't think of any.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 471

My go to source fo technical assistance is my program officer, [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] is incredibly 

thoughtful and timely in her responses. We couldn't do it without [REDACTED]! There are so many 

unique scenarios for FLAS that I imagine it's difficult to address in a FAQ or web site. A supportive 

program officer is key.

The iris helpdesk email address is not always helpful, but my PO is always very helpful.

It is excellent as it is.

N/A

I would like more of a community or hub to disseminate program opportunities for FLAS students.

Provide summaries of how the IFLE programs are impacting the goals of ED.

n/a

The technical assistance provided by Department staff is always helpful.

See previous comments

No thoughts.

The staff is excellent.

None

Another webinar would be helpful.

Can't think of any.

It often feels like because we can't ask our questions via voice or issue follow up questions to the 

answers we receive, that the answers we receive only touch on part of the question we ask. It's hard to 

convey some of the intricacies of our questions via chat... as a result, I sometimes leave the technical 

assistance webinar more confused than when I started.

Having two different sessions, one for new grant administrators, one for more experienced grant 

administrators

it would be nice if tech assistance were more accessible -- it's out reach most of the time -- we don't try 

any more.

The technical assistance webinars and online resources are quite helpful and the staff always respond to 

questions and issues on time and with great clarity. No specific deficiencies that I can identify at the 

moment.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 472

To be honest, one-on-one inquiries and exchanges with our program officer are much more useful than 

the webinars that have been presented recently. Most of the time in the webinars is spent reading from 

power points. The power points could be distributed ahead of time and the webinars could be used more 

for discussion and brainstorming. It might be useful to have break-out groups by world area and that 

include the program officer, as would be done when we hold the in-person technical assistance 

workshops. At least for Latin American Studies, the FLAS Coordinators are a collegial group who do 

consult with each other regularly over e-mail and other ways outside the webinars. But having more 

opportunities to do that as a group could be useful.

Because so many things are different due to COVID, I think it would be helpful to temporarily have more 

regular technical assistance webinars where FLAS coordinators can bring up issues and questions.

Have appreciated occasional webinars. Our program officer has always been responsive.

Our program officer, [REDACTED], is wonderful! She always responds in a timely manner and provides 

clear, consistent guidance.

all is fine

IFLE program and senior officers are amazingly helpful and professional.

IFLE Staff are gold. They do a great job.

It is good.

more frequent peer-to-peer training

not sure

Our program officer is excellent and is able to answer questions quickly and in great details. We are 

extremely happy the assistance we receive from him.

Peer to peer connections

The program manuals are very helpful. When new versions are circulated, it would be helpful to include 

a brief summary of changes to the program policies - or to policies that the USED staff feels have been 

frequently misunderstood in dealing with grantees - very brief, perhaps with a reference to where the 

changes might be found in the manual.

What is your job role?

Associate Director

Associate Director and FLAS Coordinator

campus application coordinator
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 473

Academic dean

Scholarship and Graduate Program Coordinator

Staff at a language resource center

Leadershpi of administering area center

Associate Director, FLAS Coordinator

Center Associate Director

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

FLAS - 2020 - Q28.2. How can Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships improve 

the usefulness of the technical assistance you receive?

I don't know what you mean by 'technical assistance.'

I have always received the assistance needed.

I can't think of any.

The application is very challenging. At 50 pages for the narrative, plus about 50 pages of 

supplemental data, it is one of the longest, most laborious grant proposals ever. And with the 50 

page limit, we are actually asked to condense about 75 pages of information. I think it would 

benefit from an overhaul. The proposal guidance in the PAM is incredibly long and it appears 

that so much information has been layered in over time, which has resulted in numerous 

contradictions about what should and should not be included and how information should be 

framed in the proposal. Otherwise, the post award program admin for FLAS is incredibly 

supportive and more straightforward.

The helpdesk email is not always helpful. My PO is always very helpful.

I am happy with the current arrangement.

The pandemic put everyone in an unprecedented place this last Spring, but I wish we had been 

able to provide guidance to our students a little bit sooner.

I am satisfied with the responsiveness of the technical assistance.

n/a

The technical assistance has always been positive and useful.

See previous comments
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 474

I do not typically log in to the FLAS sites, though our area center directors do. I am not able to 

respond to most of the questions as a result.

No thoughts.

Tech Assistance is excellent but grantees need to be able to meet in person more often with 

each other.

none

Provide updates to the PAM.

Can't think of any areas for improvement.

I honestly almost solely rely on the PAM and emails to my program officer for technical 

assistance for the FLAS and usually this is all I need in terms of technical assistance. With 

COVID, the information we received in the technical assistance webinar was also useful.

The technical assistance I have received has been superb. The only thing I can think of is the 

potential complication for language evaluators that may experience problems in receiving login 

information by email for the IRIS website, but I am not sure much more about that possible 

technical issue and in the instance that it has taken place the help desk was very helpful.

more support, less reporting

Cannot think of anything specific at the moment.

Again, one-on-one inquiries and exchanges with the program officer are most effective. 

[REDACTED] is very responsive and provides clear explanations. We appreciate her quick 

responses.

I would like to have more regular technical assistance webinars where we can ask questions, 

especially due to COVID. Just one webinar per semester would be very helpful, I think.

No recommendations! (By the way, there wasn't space earlier to comment on my ratings for 

satisfaction with quality of the produce, and it's not clear if the survey is now going to allow me 

to. My only dissatisfaction with the product is to increase the funding for graduate students in 

particular to make the fellowship more competitive with other sources of funding available to 

graduate students. This would help draw a larger and even richer pool.)

Technical assistance has been wonderful. The flexibility of the team during the COVID 

pandemic has been much appreciated.

FLAS - 2020 - Q28.5. What can Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowships do to 

improve communication with you?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 475

The timeliness of the Grant Award Notification in Year 1 was very difficult. I realize that this 

issue is outside of the control of IFLE staff. Communication regarding Grant Award Notifications 

in subsequent years of the life of the grant is perfectly fine.

Actually communicate about some of the resources I've learned about through this survey.

Being informed of the report due date is great, however a 5 or 6 week notification would really 

help us!

I appreciate the communication I receive.

I can't think of any.

I technical assistance call on the application process and components way in advance of the 

due date (it takes months to complete the application due the length and extensive informational 

detail and data requested. An tech assistance call at time of award notification on program start 

up. And, technical assistance calls prior to each report that overviews IRIS and what each 

section requires.

I would welcome more communication from my PO, including proactive answers to FAQs.

It is good as it is.

Make every program officer as awesome as [REDACTED]

More frequent check-ins or phone conversations.

My communication with IFLE staff is highly satisfactory.

n/a

N/A

No suggestions.

No thoughts.

Not much that is under the staff's control.

nothing

Nothing

Nothing comes to mind.

Nothing, I feel well enough informed and that I can get the information I need
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 476

Notification of award continuation earlier for clearer communication to affected students

The communication has been truly wonderful and I cannot think of ideas for improvement at this 

time.

The lower scores about notification was due to the late notice for the start of the 2018 AY. 

Thereafter things have been excellent.

there is a serious communication challenge -- the language we receive is not plain or clear, but 

a bureaucratic lingo that is hard to decipher away from Washington

To date, communication with IFLE and our Program Officer has been excellent.

We don't receive many communications but when we do it is clear and professional 

communication.

FLAS - 2020 - Q28.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your 

program specialist?

All of the above (individual email, blast/distribution list email, telephone, and webinar) are used, 

and all are useful in different circumstances. Method of communication is not \'one size fits all\'.

Full-service community schools (ESEA IV-F-2, section 4625) program

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I have not had sufficient experience with the website to offer improvement suggestions. I am a relatively 

new leader of our organization.

I've navigated on the site very minimally. It would be helpful if we could see previous reports that have 

been submitted. We are done with our no cost extension and will be submitting our final report by 12-30-

2020.

From what I can tell, the only information there is for potential grantees and those who want to know who 

has received awards and links to the bill. There doesn't seem to be any other information for 21st CCLC 

grantees. This could be because Technical Assistance wasn't included in our grant.

No suggestions.

No suggestions.

The website is user friendly and easy to use. I do not have any suggestions for improvement.

Maybe featuring the work of it's grantees and having a hub to connect everyone to practitioner resources.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 477

I wasn't aware of this website prior to this and haven't had the chance to use much expect for before 

filling out this survey. It should be pushed out more and remind grantees of this resource. I will use it 

now. It could be more visually appealing - much like the Head Start website (eclkc).

Forms for the annual report were not easy to find, and might be better grouped together on a subpage.

I rarely visit it.

the site should be more user freindly. I had to do trail an error to figure out what the icons meant and 

how to find what I was looking for.

No problems

How grant reporting process could be improved?

Easier access to filed and approved reports.

Having templates easily accessible on site.

No suggestions.

Provide actionable feedback and/or have a follow-up virtual meeting with each grantee to discuss 

progress and findings.

I have no suggestions. USDOE has been extremely responsive and supportive.

I think that the grant reporting process is fine, I would love to be able to share parent testimonials, 

community member pictures etc.

Feedback on reports would be helpful to ensure we are capturing the correct information rather than 

assuming we have done it correctly. Also, to be consistent on the information we are collecting from 

report to report. There was some miscommunication or information for the mid-year report this year to 

complete a chart that we had not completed before. I see it is included again in this upcoming report. I 

will reach out to program officer about it (Project Status Chart).

Hold a separate call for first-time recipients separate from the full call with year 2 and beyond. Some 

information felt rushed through on the call and it would have been helpful to have a slower pace to go 

more in depth about each form. Alternatively, maybe after the initial call, a second call could be 

scheduled maybe two weeks before the report is due that could be for troubleshooting once you've 

actually started working within the forms.

Rather than only reporting on # of individuals served in GPRA and again for each performance 

measures, include places where we can report on progress to our goals/performance measures. The 

timing of the reports is also difficult because the fall reports span two school years so it's difficult to track 

progress school year to school year. The reporting is also extremely repetitive in restating 

successes/challenges in multiple places.

A simpler form would be helpful.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 478

Give a seperate training/orientation to new programs only. New programs need to know what htey 

should be collecting early in the year. It is too late in the ARP training.

In the past 18 months the reporting form has gotten more user friendly - especially the project objective 

fields

Maybe if the Dept of Ed had monthly dashboard of info to complete that helped to create the story as we 

go along...

Streamline the report- many components seem redundant. The entry of the report into the G5 system is 

NOT user friendly. The forms provided often have glitches and I find that I have to put the data in multiple 

times despite saving correctly.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

Department staff is always helpful when needed.

My understanding is that the TA was readily available by this team.

It's been shared that no technical assistance was written into the structure of this grant. I appreciate 

being included in Promise Neighborhood events and communications. However, having something for 

full service grantees specifically would be preferable.

Establishing communities of practice situated in regions.

Convene a quarterly project director's meeting (virtual) in addition to the Promise Neighborhoods 

Conference. Would provide an opportunity for more peer to peer discussions, program updates, stronger 

connection to the program officers, etc.

Have regular meetings remotely, maybe quarterly or 3 times/year outside of the conference.

I enjoy working with USDOE. They are very responsive and supportive.

I think that it is sufficient at this time.

My scores were related to previous program contact that might not have been as helpful in understanding 

what information was needed, however, since assigned new program contact I would rate this much 

higher in understanding our challenges. More connection to peers doing the work would be nice or 

resources to support outcomes.

The conference in November was a great opportunity to share resources and ideas. Now with virtual 

conferencing, it would be great to set up remote working groups or remote resource sharing workshops 

maybe mid-way between grant reporting periods. (summer, December break)

The only TA we receive for community schools are the webinars for grant reporting

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 479

Impact of COVID 19 on the campuses.

Regional Labs (SEDL) for 21st CCLC

Youth for Youth

What is your job role?

Chief Executive Officer

Manager

regional director

GEAR UP – Partnerships

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

The website does not feel 'user friendly' and being a new grantee, it feels difficult to find information that 

is specific - everything is general so I don't know if it is relevant. It could use a more updated and friendly 

appearance too.

Regulations should be much easier to find. Possibly create a FAQ that is reflective of what projects will 

look for in terms of guidance. It's lacking. Also archive old information so that the page is kept current.

specifically identify policies and procedures on the website

Offer links to videos to support additional learning regarding laws and guidance.

The site should be more interactive and user friendly.

Needs to be more user friendly. It feels like there's too much information on one page and not organized.

I have significant experience navigating the regulations, etc. However, if I did not, I do not think I would 

be able to find any answers through the website. There is also very little in terms of FAQs that are really 

FAQs. There is little guidance on match provided at all, and that is one of the biggest issues for 

grantees.

Having more of a descriptive overview for each link that was found in a search would be helpful for 

filtering before getting into the legal language of the links provided

The APR portal this year was a big improvement in comparison to the previous years.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 480

I believe the DOE should provide direct resources to grantees rather than deferring resources to NCCEP. 

As a director, I should be able to go to the GEAR UP website, click on the Resources tab, and find actual 

pieces of training for directors, best practices, sample forms, etc.

Make website more user friendly, with common topics highlighted on home page for easy access. Include 

a 'how do I' function so that users can type what they are trying to do/find.

n/a

n/a

by providing more examples of forms that other grants are using that can be helpful

Potentially not the website itself, but when I worked with AmeriCorps there was another site which had a 

wealth of information that both the programs and the federal government contributed to. You could easily 

find resources, policy documents from existing programs, and examples and answers to questions 

around allowable activities. Something like that would be very helpful with GEAR UP.

The format is very generic.

Update information for the current year; the last time I looked information about applying for the 2019 

funding cycle was still listed. We are in 2020, and I was looked for 2020 information, not 2019 

information.

No suggestions

Better search engine Easier access to policies/federal guidance

Make more dynamic/engaging and visually appealing with more images, graphics, data, and/or videos.

If there are metrics the Department would like to share with partners, perhaps a dashboard might serve 

well.

I joined the GEAR UP family just a little over a year ago. As a newbie, the website was overwhelming. It 

would be great if the department would restructure the website by having perhaps four or five main tabs 

and within the tabs have sub-tabs. Still keeping the same information but structuring it in an organized 

fashion.

The website is not very user friendly. Like Google, it is very difficult to figure out how to word things to 

avoid getting information that does not apply to what you are looking for. I'm not sure how to fix this. 

Perhaps it's just the nature of search engines.

It is not user friendly, and very limited. It is often easier to find something I need by visiting another 

GEAR UP program's website.

Create a space called 'HOT TOPICS' that would include important information and webinars.

Current listings, resources, interactive map of GEARUP programs
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 481

I don't utilize that website, so I cannot provide feedback on this question.

Site map with 'you are here' designations Org chart by department and project Index of linked pages or 

programs ED staff contact list (or org chart with link contact info)

How grant reporting process could be improved?

I was not involved with the grant when we were notified so I can't speak to the application and award 

process. The grant reporting process seems to change often which makes it difficult to gather all that is 

needed when additional information is required by partnering schools.

Provide webinar training and acknowledges and review of outcomes.

Offer more webinars or instructional videos

Certain charts of information are not clear and does not provide clarity for calculation.

With this new electronic reporting, it would be great if some of the information that remains the same 

each year (for example NCES codes) could pre-populate so they wouldn't have to be input each year

It would be easier to just upload a PDF instead of having to go back and re-enter line by line.

With the GEAR UP APR changes coming out as late as they did, there was alot of confusion around how 

to respond. Additionally, the directions in the budget section were VERY unclear.

Understanding difficulty of accessing some data points, or help with the process. Some of the things 

requested recently (number of homeless or foster, students served by multiple federal programs, college 

student remedial course enrollment) are very difficult to track. I believe ED has provided some flexibility 

with these more challenging requirements which has been helpful, but we may continue to have 

challenges obtaining the necessary data.

More qualitative measures, sometimes it is difficult to describe with just numbers.

The new portal did not work appropriately in each section - I finally figured out I needed to add zeros in 

certain boxes to move to the next section even if it didn't apply to my grant. It was difficult to meet the 

small character requirements - I would have liked to know the # of characters ahead of time. I was unsure 

how to fill out the Objectives in section V.

Assist grantees in getting iron-clad data agreements from school districts. With the constant change in 

school district administrators, it is a constant battle to obtain data needed for the APR even when a 

diligent effort is being made.

Recent changes to APR were very confusing and last minute.

n/a

n/a
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 482

Provide a video of how to report

It's been helpful for me recently to learn how the Dept of Ed reports APR details back to congress and 

what they do with the APR and FPRs.

Im not sure of the usefulness of the optional questions. If they are optional, they should not be included.

This will be the first year I will complete the APR; I am a replacement director. I did not write the original 

proposal, but have spent the last 4 months familiarizing myself with where this grant is on the process. I 

contracted with xCalibur SCRIBE to implement a tracking system to better prepare for the APR and the 

FPR in the future. It would be helpful to not have 'surprise' requests for grant reporting during a pandemic 

shutdown when IT and other accounting staff are not available to provide the data.

Process is good.

In past reporting some boxes had to had text entered even if it did not apply. It was trial and error to get 

the report to allow submission.

Provide more clear and timely communications around reporting requirements. Provide information to 

grantees about how program data is used by ED.

The template this year was more user-friendly and efficient than the previous form.

I have no response at this time.

There was, as far as I'm aware, no training on the new site. I received an email directing me to the 

reporting site but nothing else. We had some problems initially because it had us set up as being in year 

7, which was not the case, but after that was fixed, it seemed to run more smoothly.

Clear indicators and take feedback from the GUP community

Data Driven strategies and specific to the district or state.

Technical issues when trying to submit when everything was filled out properly. Long lag time in 

response. The information asked for is not particularly helpful in for the project regarding evaluation. 

Much of what is done had to be reported in the narrative which was difficult in the space allowed. More 

input and coordination between grantees and DOE on what is valuable data to collect in the APR.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

More responsive to APR questions in a timely fashion.

Conduct minimum of bi-yearly training on any updates and changes, independent of conferences not 

developed by the by the dept.

Regular meetings, either face to face or virtual, to assist and provide guidance on laws and grant 

regulations
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 483

The technical assistance provided at conferences appear to be sufficient.

There is not a lot of technical assistance that comes from ED--especially with our changing world and 

the pandemic. There could be more openness to concerns so grantees stay in compliance while still 

providing services.

It ws only semi helpful, because I kept getting referred to different departments.

There really is very little technical assistance provided. It would be great if there were enough program 

office staff to really support grantees, but we (grantees) feel that they are so overworked that we don't 

want to bother them unless the issue has urgency to it.

Technical manuals to help provide further details about allowable activities, reporting expectations, and to 

clarify definitions.

Our technical issues are more university wide as opposed to nation wide.

It would be nice to have access to technical services beyond office hours - especially closer to the due 

date. Also to have FAQ link updated as questions are addressed.

It seems to me that TRiO programs do a better job of providing meaningful Priority training to their 

grantees. I would like GEAR UP to follow this type of training. It seems that Capacity Building 

Workshops and the annual conference is a great place for peer-to-peer mentoring but it lacks what I 

experienced in Priority 2 training with Trio programs.

I am not familiar with what is available to me, therefore marketing and explanation of the support 

available would be helpful.

I'm not aware that ED provides additional tech assistance beyond what is provided by program officers. 

Most of the technical assistance I receive is from NCCEP, which is excellent!

n/a

Ive never participated or accessed technical assistance

I have not had any contact with technical assistance, so I cannot answer this question really. I guess, 

improved communication on what technical assistance is available would be helpful.

USED technical assistance has been effective.

Share best practices on a regular basis. Provide FAQs to grantees Establish regular communication

Provide more opportunities for best practice sharing across programs. Provide more frequent 

communication regarding updates to spending and program guidance.

Reports from program officers at the NCCEP conferences help to clarify doubts and concerns.

I don't know that technical assistance exists as a toolkit or in an easily accessible location. [REDACTED]

provided a lot of guidance and answers when needed and he basically served in that capacity. We have 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 484

a new PS now and I worry that he will not rise to the occasion. He has already been unresponsive to 

emails. The quality of technical assistance shouldn't be based on the competence of the PS but on the 

availability of the information.

At this time, the GEAR UP team at the USDE has been extremely helpful.

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

GEARPART - 2020 - Q13.2. How can GEAR UP improve the usefulness of the technical 

assistance you receive?

Provide more webinars on assisting with grant implementation and program regulations.

Timely communication.

OFFER technical assistance especially during these difficult times, instead of waiting for people 

to ask.

The wording of the last few questions regarding GEAR UP Partnership Program products and 

services was confusing and I was not sure exactly what you were asking. I answered the last 

couple in terms of the GEAR UP Partnership personnel at the DOE.

Timeliness of response can vary greatly based to who within the department you might be 

reaching out. [REDACTED] has been a delight to work with and is always prompt and very 

thorough with answers, but often getting response from program officers may require multiple 

prompts, which has delayed us being able to make programmatic decisions.

The issue with communication with GEAR UP is with university we are partnered with as 

opposed to the federal side.

Notification and introductions with Program Officer changes.

Maybe an e-newsletter bi-monthly or quarterly from the DOE.

Until recently I was not in communication much with program officer until I was re-assigned. 

That officer has been quick to reply to any questions so I am satisfied now, however it was not 

always this way.

n/a

n/a

A Guidebook would be helpful

[REDACTED] has always been extremely prompt and professional in all my communication. I 

think [REDACTED] is a wonderful asset to lead the team. I have had challenges with program 

officers timeliness in responding or the clarity of their answers. I believe this is only because 

they have large workloads and there's been changes in staffing in the past year or so.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 485

Na

I've already answered this question; considering the preceding survey questions, I think this is 

supposed to be about partnership programs and services. I've had little to no contact with 

partnership programs and services. Or, maybe I have, but I don't know which agency falls under 

that category.

We are pleased with current level of TA.

Having access to a pdf archive of previous communications helps to clarify issues among my 

staff and reports when questions arise.

Being more timely with responses for critical matters.

GEARPART - 2020 - Q13.5. What can GEAR UP do to improve communication with you?

I am new to this grant so I am still learning a lot which is why the information being 

communicated is not clear all the time. I also feel like we receive requests for information that 

we had not anticipated so it takes time and some scrambling to get everything that is being

requested without much warning.

Offer regular/standard forms of communication; maybe a monthly or quarterly newsletter.

The communication is going well.

Please make sure to respond to questions and make sure issues are resolved.

It would be helpful to release information needed in order to plan for what's to come. I've heard 

that competition awards are released late, which doesn't allow much time to plan for the 

upcoming school year.

I think more guidance, especially this past year, would have been helpful. However, I 

understand there was very little the office could base guidance on.

Communication is already very proficient within our program and program officer.

Most of my communication and reminders come from NCCEP and not Dept. of Ed.

Send timely information regarding issues we are facing. There was/continues to be a lag 

regarding guidance re: the pandemic and how it has/is affecting our programs.

n/a

n/a
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 486

GANs were very late this year which made for a stressful situation in both our internal funding 

and guaranteeing funding to the schools. More communication as to when we should expect 

these would have been helpful earlier in the summer so we could have planned better.

GAN's sent in a timely fashion

1. Send a monthly communication with relevant information for the next benchmark report

needs. 2. Assign a program officer that has continued contact. I've had two points of contact

program officers just in the last 6 months. If I had to call today with a question; I'm not sure who

to call. 3. When a report is requested to be sent by email and is sent; please confirm receipt, so

that I'm not worried that the report was not received.

We're pleased with current communication process.

Communicate on a regular basis

Develop and implement regular communications updates to programs (e.g. e-newsletters, 

webinars, etc)

Face-to-face communications at conferences (when they are allowed to resume) help to 

reassure grantees in the implementation of specific commitments listed in grant narratives.

We have a new PS, and [REDACTED] seems to be overwhelmed by the job. The best way to 

improve communication is to communicate. I've sent a few emails that have received no 

response. This rarely happened when [REDACTED] was our PS. Even if the response is a 

simple 'I am in receipt of your email and will respond as soon as I can.' with a number where 

[REDACTED] could be reached for more urgent matters, that would be better than silence.

GEARPART - 2020 - Q13.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with 

your program specialist?

phone and email

GEARPART - 2020 - Q13.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process and 

protocols associated with this grant competition?

Again, being new to a federal grant and this position, it's a steep learning curve. It's unclear - at 

times - who we should reach out to for more direction, guidance and support.

Be clear about what you want in the specifications. Begin redefining postsecondary readiness 

to include trades, certification, workforce, and the military. College is not the only way to look at 

postsecondary preparation. Provide enough time to write and complete the grant application. 

Provide multiple webinar and check in points to discuss concerns/questions Be transparent in 

how much a program could potentially receive. This helps us to best plan our partners and 

program models. The blanket amount coupled with the number of awards is not enough.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 487

Begin the competition early enough so that the review process occurs earlier and awards could 

be made in time for school start

Clear directions for readers and scoring.

Currently, I don't have any suggestions for improvement.

Earlier award notice which would allow more time to plan prior to the start of the award funding

Early notification of RFP and technical assistance workshops.

Fairness Transparency Openness

I think clear communiaction about what our options will be moving forward will be very helpful.

I think GEAR UP needs to find better ways to evaluate services as compared to like populations 

without services, overall.

Information about the grant competition and priorities for the cycle earlier would be helpful as we 

typically try to start the grant writing process in the fall, but really there is nothing specific I think 

needs changed.

More adequately defined end of grant objectives both qualitative and quantitative.

More direct communication from the GEARUP specialist.

More notice of the RFP and more time to complete the application.

More transparency and timely information.

n/a

n/a

N/A

Nothing really. I would love it if information and competitive priorities were released earlier, but I 

understand why that is unlikely.

Prior experience points should be awarded for long-term, successful grantees, as they do in the 

TRIO world.

The overall process and protocols is similar to what I've experienced with grant programs with 

other federal agencies. The only recommendation I would make is a published timeline of what 

is due when without last minute changes. It does take more than 2 weeks to put together the 

data if someone on staff is quarantined or on vacation when the email request comes in. 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 488

Knowing in advance everything to submit for the year would be extremely helpful in planning 

processes to fulfill requests.

We're fine with current process.

GEAR UP – State

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Update content. Make it more modern and user friendly. Ask GEAR UP grant recipients to help redesign. 

And remove old content.

Make it easier to search by program. More FAQs.

It sometimes takes a lot of searching to find one particular topic. I think redefine the tabs with more topic 

specific navigation.

Make sure the information is the most up to date. For example, when searching for GEAR UP most of the 

info that comes up is out dated.

Simplify where possible.

Share links to websites and/or programmatic resources for all GEAR UP grants

The links are very general and need to help the user be able to drill down to more specific information. 

The website has too much of the vague governmental look and feel.

Additional tabs and drop down boxes

Provide more information about program successes/resources

NA

Search engine optimization is needed. The ED website is still probably built on a technology that was 

'advance' 20 years ago. When you do any search, it would give you information from the first day the 

baby was born to the death of the same baby 100 years later. If I just wanted when the person was 53.5 

years old, I am still getting the birth and death and everything in between. Please revamp the search 

engine and be more precise when we do search for some information.

The resources are limited and could ask Gear Up grantees to share best practices that the Department 

would deem valuable.

update more frequently

How grant reporting process could be improved?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 489

Simplify. Especially the data sections. And make clear instructions and guidance as to what is being 

requested - report contradicts itself in some places - we spend a lot of time interpreting. Also, only 

request what is absolutely needed...i.e. what we are being measured on. We are unsure, for example 

why we are requested to provide science course work information. If there is a specific reason what it is 

used for, please inform us. It's a lot of work to collect course work data.

I have had problems with the website actually saving and filing. Help Desk terrific!

Provide a technical manual with the APR that explains what's expected for each question. As of now 

there are a variety of interpretations a program can make in how to answer a number of the questions. 

That doesn't help us or you in reviewing the successes of GEAR UP. Make the budget sections clearer 

as well as the student information. Again, too much room for interpretation. In the current APR the 

scholarship section is unhelpful. With a grant having a 10/1 start date, the way the questions are asked 

makes it virtually impossible to accurately report on scholarship funds disbursed. Also, there are priority 

and cohort models in GU. The APR confuses these regularly. A priority program cannot report it's 

numbers in teh same way a cohort program does. The form should account for that.

Simplify where possible.

The shift to reporting on the previous academic year has made things MUCH easier. Continue to work 

with GEAR UP grantees to revise/streamline the annual and final performance reports.

Student Service descriptions are way too vague (i.e. what is a 'Supportive Service'?)

Having a detailed Project Directors group reporting Q&A session.

Meet with the programs to ensure that meaningful data (across programs) is collected, including working 

to establish more specific definitions for data indicator(s) in some areas

For GEAR UP specifically, there are a lot of student level data needed to report. Getting data 

Memorandum of Understanding with schools/districts/state Department of ED is very difficult. The 

current climate among data owners is very much paranoid given the focus on student privacy and 

misunderstanding of the use of data for reporting. Much of the academic data is not meaningful. For 

example, the number of student who progress from algebra to trig. This is great for a four-year college 

track but is meaningless to a two-year student.

Clarity around what the department is asking for in certain areas of the APR. The reporting website, 

which was recently changed to have text boxes, was difficult at best. The text boxes show a certain 

character limit, but you were unable to key up to that character limit. All boxes required and entry even if 

the response was 0 or N/A. Website support was not prompt.

Any changes in the APR would result in our scrambling for data. So we need time to do collection and 

compilation. The purpose of the APR, other than reporting to Congress and rating our performance for 

NCC, is not clear to grantees for how the collected data are used at the ED to improve program 

administration.

None needed.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 490

We are unsure what tech assistance the Dept staff provides. Our program contact has been helpful when 

we ask questions, but there is little resources available for grant recipients from the Department...like 

webinars, how-to tutorial videos, etc.

Provide more staff so that the response time to questions/concerns could be immediate (within 24 hours). 

When requests for information (budget carryover plans) provide a template so that the information you 

need is provided and time is not wasted on the state end gathering data that is not necessary.

If all of the department staff (Program Specialists) had an incredibly in-depth training about all of the 

facets of GEAR UP before they started, that would be good. Also, if the staff provided us the same 

answers to the same questions, it would be helpful. When Program Specialists ask for different things 

and provide different answers to the same questions, it makes it hard to want to ask them for anything. 

State grant directors meet regularly and when we have a request from ED and one state has heard from 

their Program Specialist that they want X, Y, and Z in great detail in response to the request, another 

state hears from theirs that they only need to provide X, and then someone else is asked to provide A it's 

mind boggling. When there's no consistency coming from the Program Specialists, it feels like there's 

inequity between how we are all be treated. It then becomes easier not to ask questions.

More comprehensive use and collection of FAQ. More links to key information, regulations, etc.

Other than ED sessions at the national NCCEP conference, I'm not aware that any of these things are 

provided by Department staff on an ongoing basis that are specific to GEAR UP grants. I do receive 

technical assistance when I initiate contact with my program officer, who is very helpful and responsive.

The information regarding compliance, allowable expenses, permissible services/activities needs to be 

correct and consistent. Conflicting advice from Program Officers is very common.

more communication

N/A

Provide recordings of the webinars for people who cannot make the session.

More opportunities to interact and ask questions of ED staff as was done virtually this summer.

Due partly to the staff changes at the ED, we were left without program specialist to contact other than 

the director, who has been superb. Now that new staff are hired, I hope improvement will be coming.

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

GEARSTATE - 2020 - Q12.2. How can GEAR UP improve the usefulness of the technical 

assistance you receive?

Is this the same question as previously asked? There is no training or tutorials provided - this is 

why NCCEP exists.

Hire more people and fund the US ED at a reasonable rate!

For technical assistance related to online APR/FPR information - actually work with GU program 

directors and/or data leads to discuss how the computer programming could work better to show 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 491

and support our information. For general technical assistance - have all of the Program 

Specialists actually provide the same answer to the same question. Generally they are not on 

the same page so program directors get different, and at times conflicting, information when 

discussing info provided by their program specialist. At times the consensus is that we'd rather 

just not ask because the answers are rarely aligned, and at time, are not remotely accurate.

We have always received quick and responsive technical assistance.

Ensure accurate and consistent information is given.

more communication

N/A

Recordings of sessions.

The past 12 month experience has been impacted by the change of staff at ED and the COVID. 

So this has not been a 'normal' period. Given that, I am generally satisfied with ED's program 

specialists who I did contact.

None, I am completely satisfied.

GEARSTATE - 2020 - Q12.5. What can GEAR UP do to improve communication with you?

Not sure how the specialist is different than our main contact at DOE - did we already answer 

these questions? Regardless, when we reach out with questions, we typically receive adequate 

and timely responses.

Hire more staff at US ED and fund the OPE at a responsible rate so they can do their jobs well! 

Support the US ED and don't undermine them for political reasons.

Provide more staff to cut the number of grantees a specialist must supervise.

I inadvertently answered discussed this in my previous answer. The Program Specialists really 

need to work together to provide consistent information and answers to program directors 

questions or requests for information. When a Program Specialist stands up in front of a group 

of GU Directors and asks for their help answering a question, that's not good. It's also not 

helpful with GU Directors talk and we each got a different answer to the same question or 

request from our Specialists. It diminishes the credibility of ED and makes it hard to trust that we 

are being managed in an equitable manner.

Develop more FAQ to share.

More guidance on requests for budget updates - webinar or template would be helpful. 

Proactive communication about the status of funding/appropriations, new awards, new funding 

opportunities, new regulations/federal guidance that affect our work.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 492

Be proactive and encourage feedback.

more emails and occasional phone calls for back and forth communication

N/A

NA

Sea earlier comments

Nothing, my program officer is very responsive.

GEARSTATE - 2020 - Q12.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with 

your program specialist?

Individual emails and phone calls are always the best.

GEARSTATE - 2020 - Q12.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process and 

protocols associated with this grant competition?

Better technical assistance workshops. More knowledgable information and clear as to what is 

being requested. Also, not to change grant requirements during the grant application process.

Clarity about scholarship component.

Get the grant information and timeline out early. Fund the US ED adequately to hire enough 

staff to perform basic duties in a timely manner. Announce awards in a timely manner prior to 

August 1st.

Get the RFP out early so that all concerns and questions can be answered in a timely manner. I 

don't mind reading through a lengthy document if it is clearly written and I have sufficient time to 

get clarification.

Having all of the information for the competition clear from the beginning. No changes to the 

RFP once it's been released. Setting realistic dates for submission. Setting some parameters for 

number of pages submitted. It used to be 40 pages, which seemed reasonable. Then ED 

waffled and refused to set a page limit. That's not helpful. Follow the rules that have been set for 

GU grants/competitions...1 state grant/state, 1/3 funding to state grants, 1/3 to partnerships, and 

1/3 at the departments discretion. Stop changing the rules at the last minute. It's not fair for 

everyone who has poured their heart and soul into the grant writing process for the betterment 

of their state.

I have not been part of the competition process - I am a newer state director
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 493

I was not a part of the competition/application process.

I would benefit from more topic-specific webinars and Q & A opportunities.

More time to apply and capture data

N/A

Publish an anticipated competition schedule for at least three years.

Sufficient time is not allowed from grant posting to grant due date to allow for new institutions 

(unfamiliar with GEAR UP) to participate in the GEAR UP grant program. Changes to decision 

making/process/protocols should be communicated well in advance so that institutions can 

determine whether or not the program will be a good fit to help address needs.

We have not been in the competition this time around, but be consistent in messaging and stick 

to it is always appreciated.

Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I think my main complaint is the way the GAANN program solicitation is written. It is rather brief, written in 

a newsletter form, and not necessarily organized logically. The proposal instructions are basically a list of 

evaluation criteria. It seems that the best way to write the proposal for the evaluators who have to assign 

points is to simply address the evaluation criteria using the same headings and in the order they are 

written in the solicitation. But it leads to a rather disorganized and not very creative proposal.

Clearer statement about future opportunities to apply for GAANN grants.

Post approximate dates of upcoming GAANN program solicitations within the next year. I fully understand 

that this may not be possible due to not knowing the budgets in advance, however, it will be very helpful 

to the University GAANN program directors in their planning

I do not have any specific suggestions at this time.

There should be an update GAANN Grant Director Handbook on the site. I found one that was out of 

date online elsewhere, and the handbook was very helpful. I believe the program no longer maintains 

such a resource, but this might want to be considered. I also found helpful guidance from the websites of 

other GAANN programs.

Login could be easier.

Post more FAQ for commonly reoccurring issues.

N/A
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 494

No major changes needed. The website is sufficient in its current form.

Provide more specific information for each individual grant program.

It looks good.

To provide a workflow of the program for any new admin staff to follow

We should be able to find out what the stipends and institutional payments are going to be for our 

budgeting, but when these change we do not know and then our budgets have to be corrected. If the 

office could be more transparent about changes that we need to implement, then we would have to do 

less back in forth. Our grants manager has been amazing with helping us navigate the changes.

The website is efficient, has a clean layout, and has all the information I expect to find.

I always have a hard time finding the details on the RFP for GAANN in HTML format like the NSF 

provides. In addition, It would be good if the GAANN program plans for acceptance of proposals were 

posted further in advance of the deadlines.

Updated information, clearer directions. Example, when reporting is coming up, the links were listed, but 

didn't work. No information about timeline or when reporting would be open or instructions available, etc.

Scrap it and do a new one

The need to change the password frequently, to one that is not similar to the past 5 or 6, is rather 

cumbersome.

[REDACTED] has always been very responsive and helpful.

i have trouble with my financial aid office regarding how my colleague institutions interpret whether health 

insurance is allowed by a GAANN grant, so website does not provide any guidance on this or tips other 

schools have used to allow this important type of aid

No knowledge/comments

The website is very good. I find that I get more information from the program officer and they are 

fabulous.

Easier navigation.

1. Fix any broken links within the website. 2. Customize content relevant for institutions vs individuals

(where needed). 3. Modernize the look and feel of the website (e.g. add more color, pictures, and/or

graphics).

Expanded FAQ

The frequency requiring password change may be reduced.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 495

Without using the search function the site is somewhat difficult to navigate since there is so much 

information, and very few external users will make use of all that is there given the breadth of ED's scope.

How grant reporting process could be improved?

The reporting process was straightforward. I was surprised that we are not asked to report on more of the 

program elements that we proposed, but I am not complaining.

It would be helpful to have a version of the report that could be provided to administrative support staff 

who gathering the financial information for me. More clear explanations of what to enter in each field 

(and expectations on length of the entries) would also be helpful.

Some of the instructions about budget periods and what to include in different tables required 

clarification.

The current reporting system is working very well.

Alignment of dates to the academic year would make it much easier and more relevant to our work.

An automated save feature for the content you enter would be helpful

I do not have any specific suggestions.

I feel it is very clear as it is now.

NA

n/a

N/A

Doing very good, but it will be helpful if someone respond to question on a timely manner. Often time it is 

difficult to get a response.

None

Any information of GAANN fellows' report would be useful in preparing the report

The financial requirements are always very difficult because they do not align with either the academic 

year or the grant funding year. The numbers have to be run separately and estimated for the reporting 

period. Highly suggest making the reporting align with the funding year.

Greater clarity as to what costs go in each category.

The reporting process is clear and there is sufficient time to collect the data and complete the report. I 

believe I know how the data are used, but I have never looked at where the information is posted.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 496

Some instructions are vague or contradicting.

the data collection particularly on former students who are no longer associated with the university is 

tedious

Our school is quarter system and payments are made as late as June. Entering expenditures as of April 

or May is not truly reflective of the status of the program.

easy to input data

Nothing on your end. We just have to work to collect and track the data better.

It would be good to also have an additional person get access to the reporting site. For example, I have 

two staff members who gather the financial and student data and if I could give them access to the site 

they can upload on their own.

Adding ability to preload prior year data.

Although there are probably some good reasons for doing that, at the time the annual reporting needs to 

be done the budget period did not end. It will be easier if the reporting period and budget period would 

fully match.

I was asked to submit the expenditure data multiple times within a relatively short period, which I felt 

excessive. There is also a discrepancy between reporting period and academic year, which often caused 

confusion on exactly what to report.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

The program officer is great; always very responsive and helpful. One thing that is a challenge is the 

uncertainty of the budget. The grants are awarded on Oct. 1, and it is difficult to recruit Fellows until the 

following fall, so you are immediately one year behind. It is unclear whether of how long the grant budget 

can carryover to following years, and this leads to a lot of uncertainty in hiring Fellows. We want to be 

sure that we have sufficient resources to support them all until graduation, and it matters whether they 

will have 1, 2 or 3 years of funding. But I feel uncertainty about that.

Nothing comes to mind

Nothing! [REDACTED] is extremely helpful and supportive.

I do not have any suggestions.

I believe our contact, [REDACTED], is so helpful with all of our questions. She is always prompt and 

always has a clear answer.

It is great

n/a
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 497

N/A

Timely feedback. May be they need more personnel to respond to all queries.

None

N/A

I have always received all the assistance I needed.

how to other universities handle issue of health insurance as part of GAANN program. i have colleagues 

that are allowed to cover it, my university will not and it is a very expense now. so would be nice to hear 

from others.

The staff is highly responsive and i've been very pleased with the interactions.

They are awesome. I have nothing but great things to say about them.

What is your job role?

Faculty

Academic Dean

Dean

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

GAANN - 2020 - Q27.2. How can GAANN improve the usefulness of the technical 

assistance you receive?

My prior answers are all specific to GAANN; it is the only ED program I am familiar with.

Improved clarity of whether GAANN funds may be used to appoint a fellow as a Teaching 

Assistant during his or her period of supervised teaching.

none

I do not have any suggestions.

I would be interested in having access to a GAANN Grant PI Handbook with a clearly spelled 

out FAQ.

[REDACTED] and her staff are outstanding.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 498

n/a

Technical assistance was adequate.

N/A

None

I got outstanding assistance.

Provide clear instructions of how the programs are supposed to assign costs to each category. It 

is very difficult to figure out what is allowable based upon the language in the documents 

provided. Also, the changing funding levels are not well advertised and lead to confusion.

I am fully satisfied with the assistance I have received.

The grant funds come too late in the semester. This is not so much of an issue for years 2 and 

3, but it is a major hurdle in year 1. Funds in October are just too late to recruit any new fellows 

that semester.

GAANN - 2020 - Q27.5. What can GAANN do to improve communication with you?

More frequent communication, particularly during the first year of the grant, that helped in 

guiding me in completing the reports and meeting the expectations would have been helpful.

No improvements needed at present

[REDACTED] does an excellent job

I do not have any suggestions.

[REDACTED] has been outstanding as a contact and guide.

The federal government should increase the amount of GAANN funds

Announcements of new grants can be made well in advance so that students can be recruited 

earlier and they can start with the academic year.

Communication was adequate.

Get back to question sooner.

None
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 499

N/A

adjust timeline. When awards are made in October (notified in September) then one cannot 

recruit for the current academic year. It would be much more helpful to get notice of award in 

July and start funding Sept 1 to align with the academic year

The communication is provided at a level that is appropriate for the Dept of Education 

employees, but it is not end user friendly and has caused confusion at our institution.

I am happy with the communication I receive.

Award decision are made in August and there is an expectation of being able to recruit Fellows 

for the same academic year. This is impossible. It would be better to have notification in 

January for award start in May so that there is time to specifically recruit GAANN Fellows for the 

upcoming academic year.

Focus ONLY on GAANN and not send other information via the same channel which is 

confusing

I am very satisfied with the communication that is received or sent to the GAANN specialist.

My school starts in middle of August. The fund does not come in by October. By the time the 

fund comes to the school, we are unable to use it for the semester because most candidates 

have received funding for the semester. This makes it difficult to use the fund in the first year. It 

will be useful for schools like my if something can be changed to address this issue.

The grant often starts after the start of the academic year and it is not possible to find suitable 

NEW fellows. An earlier start date OR allowing to postpone the first year will be helpful.

GAANN - 2020 - Q27.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your 

program specialist?

email or webinar

GAANN - 2020 - Q27.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process and 

protocols associated with this grant competition?

Addressed earlier.

An onboarding webinar at the start of the grant and again (webinar or Q&A time) at the time the 

first report is able to be prepared could be really helpful.

Better clarity on the frequency of the grant competitions
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 500

Enough lead time in preparing a competitive grant application.

Get things set up to allow more surety before start of the semester

have grant awardees at least notified in january. we recruit students feb-april. It's hard to fill 

fellowships when the award is made August or September.

I do not have any suggestions.

I would welcome a program handbook. More information of any kind would be helpful at the 

beginning of the grant process. Now we are on a role.

It is great

More funding do more schools could benefit from this essential program to build our future 

STEM R&D workforce at the PhD level with domestic students.

n/a

N/A

No specific comment

None

Offer Webinar

Primarily to rethink the timeline (considering both semester and quarter based schools), and 

make budgeting process more clear.

Something to consider is increasing the amount that we can award students. We live a state 

with an higher than average cost of living, but our student's FAFSA determined need is so small 

compared to their actual need. This means that we have challenges to award the full amounts 

that our students actually need. If the program can increase to a set level exceeding the FAFSA 

determined need (e.g. enable awarding up to 30% excess over the FAFSA determined need but 

not exceeding the required institutional stipend), this would be so helpful to the students and the 

programs.

The instructions are clear and I have attended multiple meetings where I got al the explanations 

I needed. For first time applicants things look much more difficult.

Timing of proposal deadlines and award to match the recruitment cycle for Ph.D. programs.

We have found limitations at our institution to fund students as awarded. Some of their financial 

need (particularly if they have a spouse) has strictly limited what a student may be eligible for. 

The GAANN contact person seemed to think that our institution's financial aid office was putting 

too many limitations. While unsure of what the cause of those limitations are, perhaps clearer or 

broader guidelines from GAANN to the financial aid offices would allow funds to be used more 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 501

effectively. All is appreciated, however, and has been a great service to our students and 

program.

Grants for State Assessments

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

No specific ideas on improvements.

don't know

I have not had an opportunity to use the website extensively since its redesign but look forward to taking 

advantage of the improvements.

Sometimes I struggle to find what I'm looking for but when I find the correct page, the information is 

helpful and complete.

Make it easier to log in, and don't let my account expire so quickly.

I don't have any suggestions at this time.

N/A

N/A

It would be helpful to include easily found tutorials and/or guides to use the site, programs, and 

resources.

Resource could be more easily identifiable and most up to date policy/resources are clearly labeled.

The links on the OESE home page are very specific; I don't always realize that what I am looking for falls 

under the specific labels. I expected to see more general umbrellas so I could navigate on my own. 

When I couldn't navigate on my own, I used the search, but this brought up several items that were 6 or 

more years old. I eventually found what I was looking for, but it was not a seamless process.

I would like to see more directed information affecting policy and regulations.

It could be easier to navigate to the specific pages I need (on assessment and peer review requirements) 

from other sections of the Department's website.

Not my area of expertise, sorry.

Not sure if its me but often when I use the Seach feature I am presented with results that are either 

outdated or not relevant.

The information is often not updated quickly and it is difficult to find specific information
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 502

With so much information, the website is easy to navigate. Thanks.

How grant reporting process could be improved?

No specific improvements.

don't know

We had a situation where we could not enter the data accurately as the field was not aligned to our 

format. This is a one-off, but it was frustrating.

No suggestions. I am responding to the requirements for the state assessment grants and the reporting 

requirements are not as extensive as those for some other grants

I don't submit the report. It's submitted by someone else in the agency.

I am new to my position, so I think a tutorial or training for new assessment directors would be helpful. I 

am not sure what to do at this point.

I have no suggestions at this time.

N/A

nothing at this time

By adding additional guides/tutorials for first-time or beginning users.

NA

I don't know if there is an onboarding process for new state leaders, but it would be helpful to me to be 

able to have some sort of website tour or tutorial about how all of the various pieces fit together. I know 

that I will eventually learn through experience how to find my data, how to report my data, and how my 

data are used, but I don't currently have a good understanding of the 'big picture.' I do want to 

acknowledge that there is a significant amount of information to know, process, and understand. 

Eventually I will know, process, and understand to a greater degree than I do now. I have been in my 

role for a little more than a year. While I diligently seek information to answer questions I have, I don't 

always know which questions to ask. It would be helpful to have a roadmap or mentor of sorts.

Publishing a detailed list of questions asked and answers given would be helpful.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

No specific suggestions.

don't know
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 503

The Department staff is always willing to assist in a clear, effective, and timely manner.

Additional practical and topically based resources would be welcome. The shift to this type of resource 

over the last few years has been very helpful.

[REDACTED] is the most helpful and knowledgeable USDE staff person I have worked with. 

[REDACTED] is always professional and provides answers that are to the point.

I am not sure what technical assistance I have received.

I have no suggestions at this time.

N/A

nothing at this time

Resources that are more easily located on the website. The information shared in person and in 

webinars are fantastic, but it's time-consuming to locate these materials later, when they are needed.

State to State sharing opportunities

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

Comp Center.

Comprehensive Centers

R15 Comprehensive Center RELWest

Regional Laboratory

The regional lab located at UNC-Greensboro, SERVE.

Group Projects Abroad program

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I have been serving as program evaluator for YGPA and the program is based at the University of 

Ibadan

It's very hard to find application materials. Maybe that's more of a grants.gov issue, but it is extremely 

cumbersome.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 504

I think it works quite well, although the application narrative could be presented with more defined 

sections.

Easier access to pertinent information and examples to complete reports

Looks good to me

Making crucial information more visible and adding redundancy of links

I had trouble filling out the PMIs--I could only enter in some information and then I got cut off when I 

wanted to enter in more

The website is fine but sometimes it seem that too much information is put together. Specific information 

regarding a specific grant program should be group together.

I'm not sure, but I do find it hard to get all of the information about the Fulbright-Hays Group program 

information from the site, for instance, looking for the latest call or awarded grants.

Less text

Cross - reference information on different landing pages - in particular, links to current contact emails and 

phone numbers for program officers and teams. An org chart would be helpful .

How grant reporting process could be improved?

Not applicable

We had difficulties in getting our participants to complete their reports, though that wasn't anything that 

USDE could have helped with, although [REDACTED] did say that [REDACTED] would write to the 

participants if they didn't do their part. Two of our participants had difficulty submitting their reports; I 

didn't see what they were seeing, but I suspect that that may have been user error rather than anything in 

IRIS.

Your data collection is limited in that most participants in Fulbright-Hays GPAs give presentations and 

create materials after the original submission of participant reports and even of the final overall report. I 

would suggest you contact the project director one year or 18 months after the conclusion of the travel 

program to see the long-term impact it had.

There was a budget-related section that popped up only after we submitted our budget narrative, and it 

wasn't clear to us if it was required.

The instructions were not quite clear about the budget reporting. I believe the site asked for two 

documents but I was only able to upload one.

Appreciate flexibility in completion of report

Works fine so far
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 505

Examples of previous reports that are similar to what is required.

I am unclear what is the difference between the project objectives and the project priorities. Also it is hard 

to fill out the PMIs--you can only enter some information and not all the information

The present grant reporting process is great . we do not have any problem with it as of now.

None needed.

I have not yet had to submit a full report, so I have little insight to share here

Better access to survey (participant) info .

Ensuring that students can gain access to any information they want to input after their program

How to improve participants' response rate?

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

More funding and thorough supervision

The program officer we ended up [REDACTED] with was very helpful, and even when he didn't know the 

answer to questions, he sought help on those and got back to us quickly. I would give him a 10. The only 

reason that I put a lower number in this survey is because there was a change in personnel before he 

came on board, and at that point it was really difficult to get answers to our questions. I ended up asking 

questions of other people whom I know had been awarded grants from the same competition.

N/A

Works well

sometimes not sure who to ask--an IRIS tech support person or our program officer

The technical assistance the Department of Education is offering with respect to Group Projects Abroad 

is working well.

None needed, I did not seek technical assistance.

What is your job role?

Program Evaluator

Higher Education Department Chair
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 506

PI/Project Leader

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

GPA - 2020 - Q32.2. How can Group Projects Abroad improve the usefulness of the 

technical assistance you receive?

Very Good

Just want to reiterate that any negatives that I am putting here are responding to an earlier 

period; by the time our GPA was completed, those had really been resolved. We extended our 

project twice for different reasons, and both times the we received good and timely support.

This isn't necessarily about technical assistance, but I wanted to comment on why the program 

falls slightly short of being an ideal program. The issue we sometimes have encountered (I have 

been involved with 7 GPAs) is financial. For some countries, the limit on funds is sufficient or 

even more than we need to request. For others (example: traveling from the U.S. West to 

Central Asia), the funding is insufficient. Part of the problem is that it really is necessary to have 

2 trip leaders. (In one case in which I have been involved, one of the trip leaders has been 

injured - able to continue the program but lucky to have a second leader to take over 

sometimes; in another case, one of the trip leaders experienced a death in the family and had to 

return home a few days early.) Yet Fulbright-Hays funding allows for only one. So expenses for 

the second trip leader take up much of the participants' contribution, not leaving any to cover 

shortfall due to expensive travel conditions to or within a specific area.

N/A

Works great

i have had problems filling out some fields in IRIS. I asked for help about three weeks ago and 

the issue has not been resolved yet

What is in place is working fine./

None needed.

In the past 12 months, it's been excellent -- I have no complaints and no suggestions.

More extensive FAQs could help us triage questions so that we don't have to reach out as often.

GPA - 2020 - Q32.5. What can Group Projects Abroad do to improve communication with 

you?

By communicating verbally or in writing when it is necessary to do so

[REDACTED] does a great job.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 507

It took a very long time to hear about the award. I think a note to say that we received your 

award and are still processing might have been helpful.

More frequent updates and notifications

None

Offering several options for communication other than predominantly email

our current program officer [REDACTED] is excellent and very responsive--much more so than 

the previous two program officers

The communication method as now is great great.

The first program officer I worked with was slow to answer questions and provided vague 

answers to questions related to the selection of applicants. The second program officer, who 

took over before we went abroad, we very helpful. The way to best improve communication is to 

provide straight answers to questions.

There is often terminology (what particular documents are called, for example) that is confusing

GPA - 2020 - Q32.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your 

program specialist?

Email ,Verbal or telephone

It really depends on the content of the communication. Blast distribution is fine for some things, 

but individual is better for other. So a combination is probably best.

High School Equivalency Program - Migrant Education

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Provide a quick video on how to look up information.

I do not know whether it is possible to add as search items, common nicknames such as  ̈Non Reg 

Guidelines, ̈ or  ̈HEP RFP. ̈ Perhaps due to being a newer director, it is sometimes frustrating not 

knowing the proper search term to use to find what I need.

I have no recommendations

n/a
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 508

The website is well presented, no improvements come to mind for now.

N/A

Mainly suggestions of clarity: clearer headings, clearer indications when a user is on an OME vs. OESE 

vs. DOE site, and more intuitive links among sites.

Clearer definitions

Everything looks great.

I think the website is very user friendly.

No improvement needed

Little easier to navigate.

Retain OME Leadership, very approachable.

Remind everyone on where to locate certain items to ensure people are using or reviewing the website 

consistently.

Not sure...

User Friendly

NA

N/A

Ease of finding information

Resources specific for HEP in one area

The information can be difficult to find (not intuitive).

Provide toolbox of HEP materials - collection of sample application, student forms, and student 

workbooks for easy access for new program directors

I haven't used their website.

Provide a notification every time its been update.

None. All info needed is there.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 509

Make it more useful friendly More information regarding programs

Some of the links are broke or outdated

User friendly with up-to-date information (latest meeting information is from 2017)

How grant reporting process could be improved?

Continue to provide examples during ADM. it helps to remind everyone and teaches new projects about 

submission requirements.

It is interesting but actually, due to budget restraints, OME is currently collecting LESS data than I think 

they should. Specifically, HSE numbers, I believe, should still be collected to ensure transparency. 

Given the current situation, I also think some pandemic data should be collected. I also think some multiyear data should be collected. Student long-term success is not easily measured within the same 

reporting period.

Reporting part D of the APR on an excel spreadsheet doesn't work very well.

the format is great right now.

No further suggestions for now.

N/A

No suggestions for improvement

Simplify it

I don't have any suggestions on the grant reporting process; everything is very efficient.

I have no problems with the grant reporting process

It is good now.

Provide additional information to the directors to help us understand all the HEP and CAMP programs

I think an explanation, from the onset, on why some APRs are due on September 30 (also cited as 9/28) 

vs. October 30th would prevent confusion for all grantees. A consistent message is always helpful. Thank 

you.

more examples

Use an electronic report in the OME website instead of the excel sheet.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 510

Should notify the APR submission date at least 90 days in advance.

Use a reporting system like the Trio Programs...we are still using outdated tools like PDF and excel when 

we can have a reporting system that populates the final the final APR throughout the year.

The process is clear; however, the department focus tends to me only on the fiscal side. I feel that 

guidance on objectives is not always there.

N/A

Received feedback from the submitted report.

None. All webinars and guidance forms have clarity about submitting the APR.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

Recruitment for projects on a quarterly basis to give the opportunity for staff to be trained due to turnover.

I wish Department staff had a greater awareness of conditions on the ground.

Require new projects to participate in the mentoring process. They can get too far behind before they 

even realize that they need help.

N/A

No suggestions for improvement

Provide more feedback not just at the end of the year or when we are submitting reports

The OME Staff have always responded to me in a very timely manner.

A little more personalized instead of webinar so we can ask questions specifically regarding our project.

The recent Annual Directors Meeting (ADM) was a stark reminder of the benefits of in-person training. I 

believe the opportunity for networking and learning from our peers is at a great disadvantage under the 

online modality. It is my hope that once the pandemic is over, we can resume the normal in-person ADM.

Navigation toolbar

NA

N/A

Perhaps create a repository of information where HEP Directors can go to for forms, procedures, etc.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 511

The evidence base evaluation is confusing. Our programs are unique and text to application is complex.

Create a repository of different forms/applications/practices used by HEP/CAMP programs

None

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

HEP/CAMP Annual Directors Meeting in September by OME

Office of Migrant Education
Final Report

2020 512

Department of Education Office of Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey 

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

HEP - 2020 - Q62.6. What additional topics would you like discussed during HEP 

meetings, webinars, or phone calls to help you implement a high-quality program?

Eligibility scenarios for staff that is new to the program.

Logic models

Impact of raising the maximum award amount for HEP projects.

Budget presentations

N/A

No suggestions

I would like more feedback on whether we are progressing as expected.

The staff has always covered everything I have needed.

continue peer to peer learning opportunities.

none

Continue to discuss best practices.

N/A

Recruiting and instruction

More webinars with Adult ed professionals.

HEP - 2020 - Q62.7. What could the HEP team do to improve the content of technical 

assistance?

Provide eligibility scenarios training that is complex due to the new changes of work with 

COVID-19 and the changing population of who the farmworkers are in the US.

Make sure the technical assistance is apropos to programs serving adult learners (which the 

HEPs are).
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 513

Eliminate the requirement for the research component for HEP projects. The technical 

assistance in this area is difficult to align with how projects actually operate. We've not seen any 

good examples of a well implemented study with a HEP. They are trying to put a square peg in 

a round hole.

n/a

N/A

No suggestions

Reply to emails

Best practices on online teaching/resources

Be considerate of the COVID19 state restrictions and adjust the GPRA accordingly

Good now

When the covid situation improves have HEP team do site visits to see first hand the challenges 

on the ground.

I think regular need surveys, along with TA sessions for teachers, advisors and recruiters will 

help.

n/a

Record and post trainings in the website.

N/A

Provide specific successful strategies in dealing with COVID-19 challenges.

clarity

Create more 'open discussions' that are less structured and allow for dialogue between HEP 

directors

HEP - 2020 - Q62.8. What could the HEP team do to improve the structure or format of 

technical assistance?

Offer it quarterly instead of once a year, especially now that we are all connected with online 

platforms.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 514

Make sure virtual meetings are on a platform allowing video and audio communication. Over 

the last year that was not always guaranteed.

The structure has been good so far.

n/a

N/A

The technical assistance often involves strict reading of technical assistance documents, which 

isn't super helpful; more guidance with interpretation would be welcome.

Provide a portal to submit questions and ensure that someone replies to all questions.

the structure of the technical assistance is great

None

Good now

not sure

n/a

N/A

N/A

Provide with an APR reporting system.

Allow for more time to ask questions. Sometimes programs seem afraid to ask 'the wrong 

question'

I like the zoom format way better than the others. It seems to work very well and you can see a 

maximum amount of participants. Use breakout room function for small group discussion.

HEP - 2020 - Q62.9. Please share any comments on how the HEP team can better support 

your work. Please include any ideas that the HEP team may use to better support your 

work as it relates to your project’s specific needs.

I would like more ideas and training for the placement of students after they obtain their GED.

I think the HEP team is doing the best they can under extraordinarily circumstances and with 

very limited resources. I wish OME could have more resources.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 515

Eliminate the evaluation research piece for the HEP grants. We are service oriented grants, not 

research grants. Having the promising evidence research requirements yields little useful data 

for projects and we are putting valuable time into an activity that doesn't help us projects to 

improve.

continue to provide webinars throughout the year.

HEP team does a great job supporting the needs of our program.

N/A

I am happy with the support we receive in carrying out our project's goals.

I would just like feedback when I send emails.

More opportunities for collaboration with other programs

More support during the Pandemic. I know it is difficult because it is a new situation 

countrywide.

They have always supported our program.

You are doing an outstanding job

Simply understand the variation of services, given local needs

n/a

OME is doing an excellent job supporting the Coaching initiative.

N/A

Recruitment strategies and successful strategies to dealing with GPRAs as we face COVID 

challenges.

Respond quicker with more details.

Very thankful with the services provided by the HEP/CAMP team

HEP - 2020 - Q62.10. Are there any other federal programs providing you technical 

assistance in form and/or content the HEP/CAMPteam should consider as a model?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 516

Coalition on Adult Basic Education and some Adult State Programs that provide training in the 

area of placement for students.

I am too new to this world to be able to answer this question.

I don't know of any.

n/a

N/A

N/A

No

No

No

no

No

No

No

no

No

No

no

No. OME excels in their support and are always striving to improve. This is appreciated!

none

None

Successful program HEP/CAMP directors
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 517

TRIO programs have a reporting system that allows for data to be compiled into their APR 

throughout the year. Currently HEP programs have all different ways of gathering data and at 

the end it is put into an excel and PDF. Can there be a system used for all programs?

IDEA – Part C Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Search doesn't seem to work very well. I find more content around regulatory requirements including 

official language on the TA websites.

Sometimes it feels 'overwhelming', and I have to wade through quite a bit to find topics I need that aren't 

the 'hot topics'. But I definitely appreciate that new Q&As have been at the top and easy to find. The 

content is awesome - just maybe some easier ways to really uses the site for research and supporting 

documents and info. Also, I would really appreciate specific sections that are prominent around 0-3 and 

3-Kindergarten entrance, and Equity.

The website groups information by type (e.g., grants, laws, data); however, many users actually work 

within specific age ranges. It might work to have additional pages that target age ranges with the specific 

content (e.g., grants, laws, data) that relate to that age range.

The website seems to take you from one place to another depending upon what you click. It would be 

simpler if all information was on one page with content that is accessible without having to link to other 

areas.

the website serves its purpose. i am able to navigate through it easily. there are no suggestions to 

improve the website.

Information has been spread out across many websites. It's difficult to know which one has the 

information needed. OSEP had a webinar about the changes and you have to have the notes to find 

what is needed.

The website could be reorganized to better assist grantees. Having information in easy to find buckets or 

tabs that relate to each program area. I really like the newest Part C coordinator pages. It's easier to 

navigate and is visually appealing.

not intuitive, search engine doesn't end in results that i'm looking for, difficulty in finding items I need.

I don't use the Department's website much

The site seems very busy, perhaps the font and set up should be changed.

There is a tremendous about of information with limited search success. It would be helpful to have a 

search feature with more intuitiveness capability.

Our direct contact has been great - responsive to all requests.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 518

How grant reporting process could be improved?

The new data management system released in January 2020 was a bit of a nightmare. Documents are 

old and outdated on the 360 website.

When they were new there was a lot of attention paid to the details. New Part C Coordinators and Data 

Managers missed out on that and it's hard to find emphasis reviewing an online document.

Admittedly it is new to me - My contact and TAs have been a huge help. The question about ease to 

access data needed for our reports reflects more on our state systems than on you all - so if this receives 

low scores from some state, I would recommend asking those states how you can help suppor them with 

their data systems - they are then asking for suppoort. :) One thing I really appreciate, especially as a 

newer person to this is that we are given a year or more of time to prepare for changes - this is critical for 

allowing us time to be ready: this is a very supportive gesture! THank you!

Provide specific instructions on what you want in the State Systemic Improvement Plan. The instructions 

are not clear.

Recent changes to the reporting website were intended to make the process easier; however, there were 

a few glitches (which are not unexpected for a new site) that caused our state difficulty in completing the 

process. Continuing to improve the website (as well as instructions) would be helpful. In addition, the 

language used in many guidance documents tends to be 'legalese' making it difficult to understand as 

well as (overly) broad, leaving it open to interpretation. Using more concrete examples (both positive and 

negative examples) would enable states to have a clearer, more concrete understanding of the guidance.

I don't have suggestions on how to improve the process other than provide new Part C Coordinators a 

one-stop shop to find materials needed for this and many other required processes.

there are no suggestions to improve the grant reporting process.

The issue this year was on submitting documents that met 508 compliance. There was little to no 

support to meet the requirement. When the requirement was introduced, there was no advance 

information, it just became a requirement--after documents had already been drafted.

I think it going to just take time getting used to the new system. We are building a new data system that 

should improve our data reporting.

avoid duplication of sections of the APR and SSIP

too much of a reporting burden - too many regulatory requirements - places undue burden on states

Allow for a longer period of time to submit.

Make it allow the use of tables and charts...Rich Text Format.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

I have zero complaints.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 519

I rated that as TA from ED not from the TA centers - if it had been the TA centers they would have been 

higher but ED doesn't really provide this kids of TA to states directly does it?

The department staff and grant-TAs that support are AMAZING. I would ensource the Deparment to 

support htme in supporting us with equity infusion into our work as a number one priority across all 

aspects of support. Also, supporting them and making it possible for them to suppoort new leaders for at 

least three years in a more intensive and supportive way is going to help increase longevity in positions 

and ultimately better outcomes for children and families. Also: Time. Time with them to develop deep and 

trusting relationships - this is core to what we are able to do all together for children and families in this 

country and our territories.

I do not depend on Department staff for most technical assistance. The OSEP funded technical 

assistance centers are my most used resources.

I think the TA provided is wonderful. No suggestions.

i access the Resources that are on the TA center websites. please continue to share these resources.

Responses not a reflection of OSEP staff, but the bureaucracy resulting in delayed responses to COVID19 issues which were basically just a rehash of the regs. Not much which 'met our program needs' until 

way after the fact.

I think the DMS process is an opportunity for OSEP and TA centers to share examples for how state can 

prove to OSEP they are meeting federal requirements in each puzzle piece.

Department staff need to be knowledgable re: EBP's and implementation science and then have the 

ability/competencies to assist state staff in a measurable, effective way.

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

DaSy and ECTA

ECTAC

DaSy, ECPC, ECTA, (NCSI, PTAC)

ECTA, ITCA (not sure if they are an Ed-Funded TA, but I couldn't be the Coordinator I am without them), 

DaSy, WestEd, ....To be honest, all of the Ed-Funded TAs who touch the lives of infants, toddlers, and 

familie have supported us/me. We absolutely cannot do our work without them. THey provide an 

additional level of support that we need in addition to Department staff support.

The Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center The Center for IDEA Early Childhood Data Systems

ECTA Center, ECPC, and DaSy

DaSy, ECTA

ECTA, DASY,
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 520

ECTA, DaSy, and WestEd

DaSy

ECTA

DaSy ECTA

ECTA is our 'go-to' for everything! They have provided great information and kept Part C updated during 

COVID.

ECTA, DASY

ECTA

ECTA

ECTA, DaSy

What is your job role?

Part C Coordiator

Part C Coordinator

state coordinator

State staff

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

IDEA - Part C - 2020 - Q8.4. Think about the types of technical assistance and support 

provided by OSEP...Which types of assistance were most effective in helping you meet 

federal requirements and/or improve program quality?

OSEP Director's letter is helpful, monthly TA calls are most helpful.

Monthly contact call. I do feel like our contact is fairly constrained on what they can and cannot 

say, which lead us to feeling less supported. I wish the model would change to a support model 

rather than a compliance model. Results Driven Accountability is a compliance model.

TA Calls that emphasize critical information.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 521

All of the above! I am new and have been thirsty for all the information I have been able to get 

my hands on. During the past months since March, I would say the monthly TA calls, Q&As, and 

topical webinars have been most important for me - along with my TA support from our contact 

lead and TAs.

Question and Answer documents MSIP monthly TA calls topical webinars

Topical webinars, Question and Answer documents, and MSIP monthly TA calls

All of them are helpful.

Webinars, guidance documents, question and answer documents, and follow-up TA calls if 

needed.

Monthly TA calls, topical webinars

Tropical webinars, calls with state lead, calls with TA Centers

very responsive to my questions

dear colleague letters and Q/A documents

Question and answer documents

Monthly TA calls Topical webinars

Our State Contact - [REDACTED] - is excellent and has helped support us through this most 

difficult year. She responds quickly and gathers resources immediately needed to make 

decisions. We have been having monthly calls for many years and our communication has 

been open and frequent - this has been the BEST support ever in helping us meet the 

requirements and receive the TA needed to move forward!!

When details are shared as opposed to global statements.

IDEA - Part C - 2020 - Q8.5. Which types of assistance were least helpful?

Dear colleague letters.

Factory support. Support that can be obtained from the website, news letters, etc...

long wordy documents

n/a for me - I needed all of it as a new Coordinator! I felt very supported and responded to.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 522

Newsletter

newsletters (only because I am often too busy to read them during the day and then they get 

lost in my email)

None

none is least helpful. all is very helpful.

None that comes to mind

Q&A documents related to COVID-19 were late and a re-hash of the regulations, offered no 

options for flexibilities.

Regular OSEP monthly calls

regulartory guidance is too complicated, it should be more direct and in layman's language

webinars

Webinars

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

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

some products are produced by OSEP, some by OCR, some by OSERS and not all products are cross 

referenced so users must navigate across three offices to find information. Not helpful

It is not truly accessible for all.

A webinar on how the site is organized and then how to search

I think I just need to navigate it on a more frequent basis to become familiar with the location for 

information I am seeking.

Make drop-downs with specific major headings so users do not have to go down rabbit holes to find the 

information they need. I often google the information rather than searching on the website.

Perhaps tabs that identify specific topic areas would be helpful. In many instances, the information is 

combined on a page with topics closely related, however, it becomes a 'maze' when trying to pinpoint 

information.

I love the recent data report and fact sheets! more of those and fact sheets on some high profile items for 

special education such as - Specially designed instruction, UDL and parent engagement.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 523

It would be wonderful to include more interactive infographics such as the ones developed for 

Race/Ethnicity and IDEA across the country.

The ability to access information on one main site instead of multiple, changing web sites would be 

greatly appreciated. Also, timely posting of guidance, updats and materials from meetings would be 

helpful.

search frequently does not generate results. Additional tags to content would improve this function.

I find the site VERY hard to navigate. My suggestion is to bring together a focus group to dedicate time to 

review the site and then make recommendations

More timely and accurate information - models, tools, and templates made available.

Search feature should be more user friendly.

Website meets standards compared to other education related websites.

I appreciate the supports from USED. The Department has been responsive to the needs of SEAs. I 

would love to access the DCL and other guidance letters in an easier manner. It can be difficult to search 

and find.

How grant reporting process could be improved?

The incoming email is challenging since announcement come from different people as Ed. I know to look 

for emails from [REDACTED], but after that, I don't always see the incoming emails if I do not recognize 

the sender. It may be helpful to have one sender for all correspondence so emails do not get missed. 

Like 'OSEP State Director Message'.

Provide training to new State Directors on the process and what is the requirement of each section.

reduce the burden...significantly.

I am unsure at this time as we have had not difficulty navigating the existing reporting process.

Make sure the reviewers are on the same page. We have had different reviewers that require something 

we are not expecting that has never been required in the past. Also, have a training video recording 

walking through the requirements and the screen shots describing what should be submitted and how to 

submit it. I am referring to the SPP/APR.

Process works well; timeliness is critical.

Incoporporation of stakeholer feedback on revisions and updates to the reporting requirements. Using the 

data collected through reporting requirements to align with monitoring process is a way that is clear, 

transparent and based on data.

provide clearer, easier access.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 524

Use data that is meaningful. it is difficult when using lag data

I do not have any complaints with the grant reporting process and have had no problems dealing with it.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

The TA is very helpful and well organized - resurfacing the 'placemat' might be a good idea, I use it for 

orientation for new SEA staff so they know who their program TA centers are.

The Department does't provide much useful TA. The TA Centers funded by the Department are 

wonderful and super helpful. But the Department itself isn't super helpful.

We currently receive excellent technical assistance.

We receive assistance from our State Lead monthly through calls. He facilitates most of our assistance 

needed which is great. The monthly webinars are good and factual. The OSEP-funded TA centers are 

phenomenal! We use them to the maximum extent. It would be helpful for OSEP staff to be able to give 

guidance. It seems as if their hands are tied and they are unable to say anything other than what the 

'script' says. I feel they want to help but may not be able to help to the extent needed, at times.

Needs met.

Regular schedule of supports related to grant specific topics.

Technical assistance from the Department should be leveraged through the OSEP funded TA centers. 

Staff at the Department are not prepared or equipped to support the needs of programs at the state level 

either in infrastructure or experience.

Respond promptly to questions/request for guidance.

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

NCSI NCII Comprehensive Center Region 2 NDETA IDEA Data IDEA Fiscal many more

NCSI

Regional Laboratories Comprehensive Centers Neglected or Delinquent Education Technical 

Assistance Center

Region 11 Comp Center

NCSI-Wested has been very helpful with TA. We have used their personnel many times in the last 12 

months.

NCSI CIFR
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 525

NCSI IDEA Data Center

NCIS NTACT DaSy ECTA

CiFR, NCSI, NCTACT, CADRE, NCEO and IDEA data center

Technical Assistance Center

Comprehensive Centers

NCSI

NCSI

NCSI Iris Center IDC

NCSI, IDC, NTAC, ECTA, Daisy

NCSI, NCII, IDC and CIFR

NTACT

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

IDEA - Part B - 2020 - Q7.5. Think about the types of technical assistance and support 

provided by OSEP ... Which types of assistance were most effective in helping you meet 

federal requirements and/or improve program quality?

can't think of anything that was particularly helpful

Dear Colleague letters, Q&A docs, monthly TA calls, phone calls with state lead

Director newsletter, webinars and Q and A documents

Monthly TA calls, Q&A docs

MSIP monthly calls

Our TA provider shares upcoming dates and timelines and listens to what we have to say about 

issues we find with processes or policy statements. He openly shares this with others as we 

have seen evidence of some items being modified to incorporate our concerns.

Q and A documents; monthly calls; conversations with [REDACTED] or [REDACTED]
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 526

Question and Answer Documents

Question and Answer documents, OSEP Director's meeeting, one-on-one meeting with OSEP 

State Leads, Dear Colleague letters.

scheduled monthly meetings

TA Calls and topical webinars.

The OSEP TA Calls were minimally helpful but oftern did not align with the needs and/or current 

circumstances facing states. Timing and topics were out of touch. Q and A documents were not 

responsive to requets form the field and lacked clarity, depth and appripriate analysis.

Working with program coordinators for the PK grant.

IDEA - Part B - 2020 - Q7.6. Which types of assistance were least helpful?

Direct TA from OSEP staff. OSEP just has a lot of inexperienced people as state liaisons and 

suffers from high mobility. I will ask the TA centers for assistance before I ask OSEP staff, 

honestly.

often times when questions come up and the state lead is contacted the response is not always 

clear to states

state lead interactions

I have not seen any of his assistance as anything but helpful. He truly addresses us personally 

and has a positive attitude of support for our state (Kansas).

Dear Colleague letters

N/A

Newsletters

The relationship and communication from our state lead.

resources on the website.

IDEA - Part B - 2020 - Q7.8. Describe the impact it might have on the State if OSEP were 

to fully automate the IDEA formula grant submission and approval process.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 527

I would agree with automating the formula grant.

The turn around time should be less.

hugely helpful and time saving.

Time saver

I think it would have minimal impact on my state. We welcome the opportunity to move to a fully 

automated system for grant submission and approval.

No wet signature Ensure timeliness

It may save some time depending on the accuracy of the information. The ability to edit the 

information should be easy to approved personnel.

No significant impact.

SUPER! this would safe a lot of time and effort on our end!

Increased efficiency with the process.

That would be a welcome innovation if they could support the timeline, program and technical 

assistance required.

it would be much more efficient.

Would make the process much for efficient.

I think it would have a positive impact and encourage it.

IDEA National Centers Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Clear, clean navigation that mirrors the standard navigation features of 2020. It is very hard to find info on 

the site and, often have a hard time finding things again later.

Just noticed that the TA resources for early childhood are not up to date. That should be addressed. I 

can't go back and change my rating on up to date information...I had not noticed that this tab was not 

current.

Too much scrolling is required
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 528

Perhaps tailor resources to the needs of visitors. Some may just want top level information, whereas 

others want a deeper dive in policy, legislation, or guidance.

Sometimes it is hard to find the information I am looking for, specifically the statutory language with 

citation for some things. For example, the other day, I was looking for 'the definition of UDL in the Higher 

Ed Opportunity Act' and where it appeared in the statute. I did get the information I needed, but it was 

from an outside agency rather than being able to be found through the search bar on the ed.gov site.

I mostly use the Department's site to locate information about upcoming grant competitions (forecast of 

funding). The site works perfectly for that purpose.

Precision of search results. Timeliness of resources. I think the timeliness has improved over the last 12 

months, compared to years past.

How grant reporting process could be improved?

The system for entering performance reports is a bit challenging to use

No specific suggestions

It would be great if G-5 didn't have the character limit on the narrative section for performance measures.

I think it is very, very much improved over a few years ago. Thank you for that. One thing that I would 

like to see is that, when projects are selected for review by the study group, the PROJECTS also get the 

results of the review as a source of formative data to improve service and product improvement.

The process is mostly smooth. The character limits on the narrative portion of the objective chart form 

have been troublesome.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

It would be helpful if ED's practices mirrored evidence-based practices. We are held to that standard in 

our grant activities, but then see a lower standard coming out of ED.

I have always been really pleased by the support and affirmation of the OSEP project officers. They show 

a commitment to improving the outcomes for children and genuine dedication. I am so grateful for the 

guidance and support that we have received.

This is not on the Department per se, but it does feel like we could all benefit from knowing and sharing 

more about what the various centers are up to, identify opportunities for greater collaboration, etc.

We are all in unanticipated times. I fully understand that this makes it very difficult to provide any clear 

and unambiguous guidance since things are evolving, often by the day. Just keep moving forward as 

best you can and we who have the projects will do the same. Thank you.

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 529

Equity Assistance Center, Regional Laboratory

What is your job role?

Parent Center Director

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

IDEA - NAT - 2020 - Q11.4. Think about the types of technical assistance and support 

provided by OSEP...Which types of assistance were most effective in helping you meet 

federal requirements and/or improve program quality?

Dear Colleague letters and Q&A documents. However, because of the need to phrase things 

legally, the documents are sometimes less than helpful. I often skim one and think, 'Oh, this is 

helpful.' But then, after trying to use the info from the document and actually apply it, I find out 

that it is in fact sufficiently vague and fails to explain anything to the level of detail that would 

actually be helpful. The Endrew Q&A is an example of this.

I operate a project, am not involved in these activities

Q&A Documents, Dear Colleague letters

IDEA - NAT - 2020 - Q11.5. Which types of assistance were least helpful?

Equity assistance is often vague, not concrete, not actionable. Too high-level.

Immediate Aid to Restart School Operations

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Creation of grantee portal with information such as grant specifics, reporting calendars, grant status, etc.

How grant reporting process could be improved?

Reporting portal and digital forms for submission with due dates, reminders, reporting schedules

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

Sharing of resources and best practices from other states
Final Report

2020 530

Department of Education Office of Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey 

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

RESTART - 2020 - Q38.2. Please describe your best technical assistance experience.

Monitoring best practices and resources, data collection

The federal Restart Team is always very helpful with our State Agency and we have good 

overall communication. I think one of the best technical assistance experiences that we have 

had was when the Puerto Rico Department of Education was requesting an extension of the 

availability of the Restart grant and they assisted us to obtain it. Another good experience was 

that after the hurricanes, the Restart Team took the time to come in a TA visit to Puerto Rico to 

see the context in which we were working regarding recuperation efforts. We visited schools and 

they were in the best disposition to help us to implement the program adequately.

Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local Educational Agencies 

Program 

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I think it is a great website. I think highlighting new and updated information would be helpful.

There are just a bunch of random letters and memos. It would be helpful to SEAs to provide specific 

resources and guidance to support the implementation of a quality Title I program, including Title I Part A 

requirements, effective practices, monitoring tools/templates, and helpful guides to overseeing a quality 

Title I program. This could be developed by using a timeline that includes what occurs from start to finish 

of a typical year by establishing a Title I program guide from eligibility and funding to evaluating and 

monitoring effectiveness with resources for each area to support this process. It would be nice to see a 

general overview of the responsibilities of a Title I Program Director and timeline of those 

responsibilities. This could include program models and design of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted 

Assistance programs as well fiscal duties.

The link to the Every Student Succeeds Act changed a couple of months ago, and the new online version 

is not as easy to navigate. Also, the ESSA webpage includes a link to key guidance, but this is different 

than the official OESE guidance webpage, so don't know if all the guidance on the ESSA guidance 

webpage are on the OESE guidance webpage, which is required for them to be in effect.

Putting all guidance documents in one location has been helpful. Thank you. The search function is still 

not very helpful as it is difficult to pull up exactly what you need when you are searching.

Providing more updated and relevant content and in a timely fashion.

Overall we are extremely happy with the support we have received.

Better links

It's not user-friendly, and old materials need to be archived.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 531

More user-friendly. The home page could be redone with different options possibly?

the website needs to provide quick access to guidance documents and it needs to be easier to navigate.

Updating resources; more direct links to searches

How grant reporting process could be improved?

It is incredibly burdensome and places a huge strain on State resources.

It would be helpful if we had guidance on the grant reporting process.

The ED data portal is not always easy to access. or to find information.

It would be wonderful if we could get any information that will be needed for the reporting at the beginning 

of the grant. Some times we need to build systems in order to collect the information you want, and we 

can't build it after the fact. Knowing up front would be extremely helpful.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

I think the technical assistance provided overall is good, but I'm not sure I've worked with this specific 

staff.

Provide resources in an organized manner that is helpful to manage and oversee all program elements of 

Title I part A.

I really appreciate ED's staff's collaboration with NAESPA - it helps all of us do our work better. Please 

continue to collaborate.

I would like to see webinars held specifically for SEA Title I program staff.

More timely follow up to questions posed by LEAs and SEAs.

Are there conferences/workshops the Department provides regarding Title I, Part A? Is there a technical 

resource center for Title I, Part A? If there are, it would be great to be more aware of those opportunities. 

If there are not, could those opportunities be considered?

Even in the midst of the pandemic and travel is limited, it would be helpful to have a virtual combined 

federal grants conference. It will help to connect and fill the gaps in knowledge as it relates to using 

federal funds to meet the needs of pandemic and beyond.

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

Comprehensive Center
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 532

Comprehensive Centers Neglected or Delinquent Education Technical Assistance Centers

Comprehensive Centers, Regional Laboratories, Equity Assistance Center

Ed Northwest Regional Center 17

NDTAC McREL-NCCC

Region 10 Comprehensive Center

Region 15 Comprehensive Center WestED NCSI CSTI

REL Central at Marzano Research

REL, Comprehensive Center, N&D Education TAC

Wested

What is your job role?

Federal Policy Liaison

Indian Education Formula Grants to Local Education Agencies 

Program 

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Notifications regarding Indian Education Programs to be given with plenty of advance notice and be 

included on the website.

Difficult to find answer at time.

Currently I am saisfied with the website.

506 form training

I have not been to the departments website so cannot give an opinion.

It would be good to have links to where we can find additional information regarding Office of Indian 

Education, Native American grants such as Title VI and Johnson O'Malley.

It is a good site. It may already be but I would like it to be more user friendly.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 533

information seems repetitive from year to year. Like some new stuff.

The FAQs are hard to find specific information on. Improving that document for ease of locating specific 

information could be helpful.

It is sufficient enough in my opinion.

The aesthetic is outdated. It needs to be refreshed/updated.

I haven't had trouble so I really can't comment

No comment at this time, do not see a need to improve the website. Thank you

not sure

At this time I have no problem with the website.

No Comment

Nothing

Sometimes it does not save the information I put in.

I'm satisfied with how it is presented now.

Too many websites are designed more for computer 'geeks' and less for 'average' person. Occasionally, 

the wording or labels need additional clarification. Less Dell and more Mac.

I can sometimes be difficult with the username and password to login. Sometimes even though I have it 

written down I have to reset to get in the system and I hate having to change passwords.

Everything was easy to read and find information.

Make it more user friendly, rely less on government terms.

My only real complaint has been in regard to receiving updated ED506 Forms with new expiration dates, 

arriving late into the Fall after we have begun to register new students. Receiving those updates early in 

the Spring would be very helpful when conducting our Kindergarten Roundups, etc in May of the ending 

year.

Just tricky finding the correct sites. Have to go to one website to sign up for grant and another 

website/page for information and tutorials. Would be easier if there was only one site for all of it or a link 

on each site back to the other site. The other issue is going to Grants.gov or G5 and having to know the 

grant number to look things up. Seems a school should easily be able to log in with their name and CDS 

ID number and have a list of all grants they have done in the past or present-not have to search by grant 

number to start a new grant in a new year. Our school does Tit I, Tit II, Tit IV, REAP, Indian Ed, which 

was Tit VII and now Tit VI (confusing), Impact Aid. Not all are on the con app-some are stand alone. Very 

hard to train a new employee or keep track. Sure hope I don't have a major technology malfunction or 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 534

school office fire and lose hard copies. Hard enough to get a new computer operating system and lose all 

the bookmarks. Just went through that last year.

Update graphics and appearance.

Sometimes I feel it is hard to find information by using the search bar. Maybe use shorter terms in 

searches but over all I find what I need when on there

user friendly

Keeping the info up year round would be better. Any other programs it is linked to may need more 

instruction such as G5.

I wish I could print a sample copy with an example of the answer maybe. Just for the fact that sometimes 

I feel like 2 questions are asking the same thing and I'm not really sure what it is wanting. Nothing I have 

written has ever been rejected or anything so I obviously haven't been too far off just would like to be 

sure.

It seems as though there is a lot of information crammed into one space, and sometimes it is not clear 

where to find specific information.

N/A

I feel it could be a little less cluttered, perhaps sectioned off in a way that is more appealing rather. This 

site is so helpful but I do feel it could be more appealing.

my experience has been fin haven't had any issues and when needing assistance I have been given help 

in a timely manner

Organization of information and access to information that is listed in emails

I am not sue if you are referring to Grads360 or the US DOE.

It is hard to get to the correct area. Maybe have better definitions of what the areas represent.

How grant reporting process could be improved?

Clarity and transparency on what is being reported regarding grantees information.

Be very specific to data needed and why? These grants in my opinion are under funded, and requiring 

collection of data and pouring time into submitting a grant every year takes away from students' time. 

States already report test scores, attendance, etc. why require us to collect again.

Examples of Issues from various schools

Having the necessary forms easily available and updated versions.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 535

I believe it is sufficient for the needs of the grant.

Not all districts keep track of Average Daily Attendance. When asking for attendance data, I suggest 

Chronic Absent Data. Chronic absent data deals with the students we target regarding does not meet 

proficiency. thanks

I like the EDEN system. It is simple and straight forward.

our LEA, Native students make 10% or less of total student population. EdFacts Data does not even 

populate data on the Academics, Attendance, or Graduation. Often, each school has to use their own 

calculations and I tally total or average, which sometimes makes data difficult to report accurately.

The reporting process is fairly easy.

It would be good to make it more specific to each schools needs.

Clear measures for reporting data would be helpful.

It is a simple reporting format and the helpline is excellent. Hard to have a simple report that is also 

flexible for local concerns. I would err on the side of simple which I believe the department has done.

???

Less paperwork, more flexibility in determining success of programming such as qualitative data rather 

than quantitative

I haven't had issues so I can't comment

No comment towards improving the reporting process. Thank you

not sure

No problems at this time.

No Comment

Combine personnel changes, registration, and Part I together. These are all small separate reports that 

require 3 responses. Many programs are very busy and less would be better.

I would like more detail in how you use the data given.

If we could use one year instead of different years for certain questions.

Simplify. Increase the options (answers) to questions. Allow flexibility in the delivery of material in the 

program.

The reporting process was very easy to complete.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 536

The grant reporting process is not relevant to the students served in academic progress. Comparing all 

Indian students, many of which do not meet the federal definition for the grant, makes the data 

meaningless. In addition, comparing to all students, with the Indian students included, is also a false 

comparison.

To improve the grant reporting process, webinars would work for me.

No comment

Just went through it for first time last year. Did not see a benefit to our school and not sure how data is 

used. This year I believe I have heard that reporting is waived due to COVID closures. Hope that is the 

case. Would be near impossible to hold a parent committee meeting by Zoom in our rural location. The 

families and teachers are struggling enough just to do distance learning and classroom meetings and 

online assignments when many do not have internet connectivity. I can catch some of them when they 

come down to school individually for a meeting with teacher, but it would take a lot of time. Our school 

only receives +/- $5000-seems there should be a parameter, such as schools receiving more than $20K 

or $50k need to report but schools under a certain amount waived. Generally we are small schools with a 

small population and one person has to do all these applications and reporting and meeting notices, 

report writing, management of school policies, etc. That person happens to be me and it is a busy job on 

a part time schedule of 20-25 hours a week. Made harder by school closure/distance learning from March 

13, 2020 to the present.

Request data during the year instead of after the year has closed.

Reporting process is okay.

Not all schools use windows. All computers in our district are macs it would be nice if the online portions 

of the applications were compatable with other program than PC's internet explorer. I have to go use a 

computer from the finance side for banking rather than my education computer to submit the grant.

More instruction from Dept of ED or Easie when things are added and NOT adding anything in the 

summer months.

Carry over information from the previous year in all areas, then the LEA would be able to just go in and 

delete or add to what was used the previous year.

N/A

Clarification in data required and availability of information.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

Make sure responses are timely and informational for grantees.

I only assistance I received is hep with login.

Examples of issues within the various programs
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 537

When receiving technical assistance one usually defers to another department and musical chairs starts 

to play out.

It would be great to have some training videos throughout the school year that can give ideas or 

clarification of what is expected. It would also be great to have group collaboration with other Native 

American programs across the state.

There are some gray areas with the grant. If there was a handbook that specifically stated what can and 

cannot be done with the money and program staff that would help. Example; Using program staff to cover 

non native non program classes. Using program staff to cover phones at receptionist desk for district not 

directly related to the grant. What constitutes an emergency to allow this to happen or is it legal within the 

grant guidelines?

Never had onsite TA. I receive training at conferences in past years.

The Department staff is always helpful and quick to respond with all questions.

More training and specific information about what all we could do with our programs.

Until the options were listed, I didnt know they existed.

they are extremely helpful with the technicalities of the report. Really haven't used them for data analysis 

support.

??

When the grant deadline is approaching, please stop calling every 10 minutes. Also, our student count 

numbers increased quite a bit this year due to online enrollments that collected 506s as well as a target 

campaign by our staff to go to homes to collect missing 506s. We were accused by [REDACTED] of lying 

about our numbers and demanding a recount despite my previously submitted explanation as to why the 

numbers increased. That is NOT professional.

I haven't had issues so I can't comment

No comment, have not had any trouble for assistance. Thank you

not sure

none at this time

No Comment

The staff has always been very helpful by telling me exactly what I need to do.

More local trainings.

They are very helpful and I can't think of anything at the moment.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 538

The service received has been adequate. Answers to questions are clear.

No comment.

Provide presentations of best practices, not a recitation of the guidance. Separate training for new 

practitioners and veteran grant managers, or put the new information first and specifically call it out. 

Training at conferences should be live streamed at the same time for programs that cannot support the 

travel to have access. Training should also be recorded and available via a library.

Any changes that are recommended are usually given in the comment sections. It would help if 

assistance is given with this section.

Some of the jargon is very technical, sometimes a challenge to implement 'in the field.'

The change in venue of sharing information face to face... now virtual is a steep learning curve for some. 

As time moves on and staff are expected to work in these conditions the understanding and acceptability 

of sharing information should become more user friendly.

Not really sure what is offered other than tutorials on how to complete the application the first year our 

school signed up for the Indian Ed formula grant.

Evidence-based programs and resources

They are awesome to work with

Adding things to the grant needs to be taught better.

Provide online workshops of best practices.

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

Regional

If your talking about Title VI EASIE I reach out from time to time to get assistance but didn't record 

anything other than that.

NWREL

21st Century Community Learning Centers.

--Neglected or Delinquent Education Technical Assistance Center --Youth for Youth: Online Professional 

Learning and Technical Assistance for 21st Century Community Learning Centers

REL Region 15

Resetting password
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 539

y4y

What is your job role?

Administrator

Director of Federal Programs

Title VI Coordinator

Director

Principal

Program Manager

School Principal

Academic Services Manager

Education Director

Homeliving Specialist

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

OIE FORM - 2020 - Q48.7. What professional development training or conferences do you 

or your staff attend locally, regionally or nationally to improve the performance of your 

programs (i.e., State Conferences, National Associations, Federal Program Conferences, 

etc.)?

All staff attends the Oklahoma Council for Indian Education yearly state conference.

National -used to

[REDACTED] Occasional NIEA conference

National Association for Bilingual Education, Indigenous Language Institute, State Bilingual 

Conference and various trainings done by the Indian Education Department for New Mexico.

National Indian Education Association, Tribal conferences.

National Indian Education Conference Minnesota State Indian Education Conference Local
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 540

NIEA, NJOMA, SJOMA, OCIE, Local Consortium meetings, Local tribal professional 

development training.

Oklahoma Council for Indian Education Conference National Indian Education Assoc 

Conference

We attend the NIEA conference, NJOM conference, state JOM conference, and OCIE 

conference each year.

Anything local or free. There is not enough room in the budget to service children and pay 

expensive fees for conferences.

Local district and tribal professional development. NIEA. State conferences through the 

Michigan Department of Education.

State conferences and support from our ESD

Local, State, National, and Federal Program Conferences.

Webinars

NIEA Conference, JOM Conference, Drop out Conference, Family Engagement Conference

Professional Staff training is provided through our local Vo-Tech Facility and other State 

Department workshops. Thank you

none

We have a very small Indian population and sometimes it is difficult to plan for them effectively

None currently

Mainly the online training sessions, Impact Aid, and tribal educational meetings.

State Indian Education Conference

Federal Programs though the state department. Tribal consultations.

NIEA, NJOMA, OCIE, State JOM Conference

None

Federal and state conferences

We have just done online training as our travel is constrained.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 541

California Native American Conference, College Board Native American Conference, Local 4 

year university curriculum and college going conferences.

None

National Indian Education Association convention, California Indian Education Conference

I simply try to watch (live) any of the webinars offered by your agency. I meet with other Title VI 

coordinators in the area on a yearly basis.

MT Indian Education Association Conference, Natl' Indian Education Association Conference

The Annual California Conference on American Indian Education. Tuolumne band of Me-Wuk 

Language Symposium.

none too costly for a small school to send staff to trainings. Webinars a more affordable option.

Evidence-based programs

I have attended conferences when held in Okla

Miea, National Miea

None other than online ones and state conferences about grants. Due to travel cost. We live in 

an isolated community.

State and National conferences. Local meetings with districts and Tribes.

State Conference Impact aid Conference

State Conferences

State Conferences

State Federal Program Conferences

Webinars provided by U.S. Department of Education Indian Education

OIE FORM - 2020 - Q48.8. Over the next year, what can OIE do to better meet your 

technical assistance and program improvement needs?

Additional supportive frequently asked questions to address ED 506 forms and parent 

committees.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 542

Allowing more time for part II of grant.

Bring about normality

Clear consistent expectations on 506 form, allowable expenses.

Communication about forms and processes.

Create a video of what other programs are doing across the nation. We need to be able to share 

ideas and gather ideas that are working with the students.

Do several webinars going over this survey

Ease of use

I am Familiar with OIE but was not too familiar with the Local Grants products and service. is 

this the same as our Title VI grants for our Indian Ed programs. If so, I didn't know we had 

products?

I would like more clarification on the acceptability of electronic signature on the 506 form.

I'd like to see more localized training and conferences that are free to staff members so we can 

learn more about what all we can offer our students and help to expand our programs.

In the past, staff directives have changed. Notification of such changes was not clearly 

communicated.

Increased communication.

Keep the 506 form updated and make is electronically fillable with digital signature.

Make the EASIE grant process easier to navigate and use multiple search engines rather than 

just the one

Maybe allow an additional hour or two when calling from the west coast

No comments at this time to improve the technical assistance or program improvements. Thank 

you

not sure

nothing

Nothing at this time.

Nothing. When I have a problem and a solution is rendered.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 543

Offer more local training.

Offer webinars

OIE does a really great job keeping us informed and especially deadlines. Can't think of 

anything that needs improvement at the moment.

OIE has been accommodating with information and suggestions to the specific program.

Overall, I have been very happy with the program and assistance.

Provide sessions on highlights of other programs to share ideas.

Provide training that is on demand, and designate new information at the beginning of the 

session.

Provide webinars.

Share links to evidence-based professional development opportunities for educators and 

administrators. For example, WestEd https://www.wested.org/services/professionaldevelopment/ provides an excellent range of webinars and training opportunities. University of 

Minnesota's Check and Connect model http://www.checkandconnect.umn.edu/, California 

Collaborative for Educational Excellence, https://ccee-ca.org/resources/distance-teachinglearning/

Sorry, but I'm not sure. This pandemic has given me many questions as to how to run this 

program safely. (e.g. How to hold the public forum?)

Unsure

Uploading documents to the grant is awkward. It would be nice to make that easier. We are 

told to have certain people to attend our meetings, then they are not able to sign The PCA form, 

such as a tribal representative, staff member, Superintendent/Principal. So why include them 

then say sorry you can't sign the form? I understand they are needed for the process but they 

should be counted showing their attendance is counted.

Waive reporting/ requirement for parent committee meetings until all schools are back on normal 

operating system with open campus' and parents able to attend public meetings on the school 

site.

Innovative Approaches to Literacy Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

no suggestions
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 544

No suggestions. I used it mainly when applying for the grant several years ago and not so much this 

year.

Everything look great.

Navigating the website is a bit confusing. A selection menu from the main page for the entire site might 

be a solution. Others may not be having such an issue as I have not had to log into the website 

frequently.

This may be an operator error situation here but it would be nice if the program officers linked to each 

project had information immediately available. The site could also benefit from visual success of past and 

current projects.

Additional clarity regarding submitting reports.

NA

I feel like the site was designed for contractors/vendors instead of practitioners.

Nothing at this time.

I think the site is probably fine, the only issues are probably the user (me). The search aspect could be a 

little better is seems.

I have found the website to be easy to use and workable

live Chat box for questions would be helpful.

The site is usable and somewhat user friendly. Search features could be better.

How grant reporting process could be improved?

no suggestions

The process, and my understanding of it, has become clearer over the years. Something to save 

passwords would be nice.

Better connectivity and in-person conversation.

I appreciate all the work that our grant personnel have put in to make our experience so great! A few 

times loading reports have been an issue. However, it isn't anything that would equate to a bad 

experience and I have no suggestions at this time on improvement

I think the grant reporting process is very effective and easy to complete reports

Give better understanding of grant reporting timetables. I do not receive much correspondence from 

program officer at all.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 545

G5 did not have paperwork. I filed out forms and submitted directly to Washington. I don't think those 

forms were ever uploaded. So, a more workable G5 experience could be helpful. Everyone was 

extremely helpful to find a solution to the situation.

What I personally appreciate is the time the program managers take each cycle to host a webinar with 

expectations. As a first time submitter, the format seemed overwhelming but, we were walked through 

the process and told what needed to be completed both in the interim and final report.

Submitting reports/evaluations can be mainstream, providing the ability to attached documents.

NA

System is clunky. Needs to be more user-friendly.

I think spotlights on programs would be useful for modeling/replicating purposes.

The reporting process is fine.

More best practice sharing on how other grant partners are collecting and analyzing data and using it to 

drive program improvements. More transparency on how the DOE uses the grant reporting data we 

provide

It's sometimes difficult to separate the IPR and APR requirements out from each other in G5. I think our 

program might not fit the same mold as many other IAL grantees due to our very national focus vs. 

specific local impact, so our comments should not be taken as indicative of all grantees' experience.

My only difficulty with the grant is the G5 which seems almost impossible at times to maneuver

Please provide more assistance with the reporting process. Please host conference calls with the Project 

Director to discuss reporting process procedures.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

no suggestions

Areas marked don't know/not applicable are ones where we have not reached out.

Department staff have been more than accommodating given their caseload.

Honestly, our experience as a whole has been very pleasant and without complaint!

I have not had to use technical assistance often. When I have it is very efficient.

I havent received anything at all concerning technical assistance. I receive very little communication at 

all.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 546

Is there a direct website for consultation with peers?

Maybe there could be email communication that is shared that gives office hours to address all aspects 

of the project. In some cases in the previous set of questions, I wasn't aware that some of those 

resources were available.

n/a

NA

NA

Spotlights on model programs would be useful.

The technical assistance we have received has been incredible.

These has been several program officer transitions and limited technical assistance supports provided 

outside of periodic check-ins and requirements for IPRs and APRs. Opportunities for optional 

collaboration/knowledge sharing calls across grant partners pursuing similar projects could be helpful

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

When I got logged out, they provided assistance.

Youth for Youth, 21st Century Programs

What is your job role?

Director of Innovation

Project Director

Javits Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

So far, I am very satisfied with the website. Thank you.

Javits program PO has provided good guidance for our projects throughout the years. We do appreciate 

working with her.

More information. Update information.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 547

I didn't use the website, only G5.

n/a

The website is frequently out of date and showing information about activities and deadlines that are long 

past. Even if there is no new information to add, it would be helpful if old information were removed.

Focus on the audience of the grantee rather than the general public.

The website updates seem to happen extremely infrequently, so information posted there is often over a 

year out of date. Even if new information is not available, it would seem more professional to remove 

outdated information. Also, it would be helpful as a grantee to have a contact name or PI name for other 

grants listed on the website, to support efforts to collaborate and communicate about ongoing work.

You could improve the website by making grantees aware of its existence and what it can do for 

grantees. It appears that this website does not make it straightforward to find items specific to the funding 

stream for one's grant.

Each improvement that has been made is helpful. It is a process and it is getting better with each 

iteration. Thank you. Perhaps after a few more months using the site, I could have a more targeted 

answer.

Make it more visually engaging; under awards, include links and to other Javits-funded projects' 

homepages to facilitate communication among other projects. Add a section re: implementation under 

COVID 19

You could add a link to the G5 site. You should include more information about the Jacob Javits 

Program.

I wasn't aware of this change and therefore haven't spent any time on it. I typically just search in Google 

for Javits information and that works fine. However, what I do NOT know is how to get on an email list so 

I know when new grant applications are available. Does that exist? If not, it should so people are 

informed about new grant opportunities.

Information was not up to date. There needs to be a specific place to reference the Jacob Javits 

materials. It is not well distinguished from other departments.

More information about changes due to COVID19, if there were any.

No feedback at this time

I admit to using this resource less than I use many other websites. I do search it, but often the information 

I need is better followed-up with the program staff who are excellent and well-informed.

The technical support is usually pretty good. Thank you. Most PIs are phenomenally busy and it is 

challenging to manage everything required by the department. The website could be a place where it 

would be nice to be able to easily access things. For example, I just got a message about a budget 

revision. It would be so have had a direct link in the email, that took me right to the document that I need 

to submit ...
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 548

Had everything we needed. :)

n/a

password issues are challenging but help is always provided.

How grant reporting process could be improved?

The format of the performance report may need to be revised. Current form seems to be mroe 

appropriate for other types of projects such as construction project. If the form can be more appropriate 

for reporting the education project, our report can contain more meaningful data. Currently, I use 

additional blank pages to report important findings of the project.

I have had numerous persons assigned to the grant oversight. The first person was excellent but every 

person after that has been a disappointment. They were not knowledgeable and they did not return 

emails or phone calls promptly. They promised regular communication but did not deliver it. The 

reporting requirements are superficial and fail to capture the true outcomes of the grant.

Better understanding of how data is used. Forms are fine and easy to use.

The materials were never loaded into G5 so we emailed them to the program officer. She tried to fix, but 

it was a problem within G5.

We'd like to know earlier what goes into things like the final report, for example to see examples of what it 

might look like.

There seems to be a lack of clarity and consistency around due dates, access to G5, and use of G5. 

Report due dates and formats have been changed more than once (including moving deadlines earlier 

with little notice).

Less reporting

Have more consistency among programs for reporting.

Consider developing a separate webinar on the appropriate use of carry forward requests particularly in a 

year with COVID 19.

It is definitely a process and we happen to have an excellent program officer, [REDACTED], who offers 

guidance each step of the way. Her attentiveness to our questions is most valuable and appreciative. I 

think having a knowledgeable program officer is the key to understanding and engaging in the process. 

The personal customer service aspect is critical.

More frequent communication

You should make drastic changes to the G5 site. That site is old and extremely difficult to navigate. The 

site is clumsy and not user-friendly.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 549

The biggest issue I had when filling out the final report was that it wasn't clear until it was too late that I 

needed our authorizer's approval before submitting the final report. This makes sense but I don't recall 

any guidance that gave me a heads-up on this process so that significantly delayed my ability to submit 

the data on my target date. Please make sure in the future that this step is noted right up-front.

1. Consistency between what the program director and program officer report and respond to questions.

Information provided by the department conflicted with what we were asked to submit. 2. The program

officer needs to be more independent to respond to questions and project details. 3. The G5 needs to

have more consistent reporting fields for the time-referenced material. 4. Off-schedule reports should be

requested with 30+ days notice.

I would like to learn more about how the data is used.

At the end of our third year, I feel as if we finally have a team assigned to us with the goal of truly

supporting us. We've had three project liaisons, and our current one is amazing. She has made all of 

the pieces come together to make sense, and though she can be tough, she is always professional, 

always responsive, and always leaves us feeling as though we have a strong advocate for our project's 

success. Thank you, [REDACTED]!

This is not a suggestion from improvement, but rather to confirm that the report webinars and the 

accessibility of program staff are critical to our ability to report effectively.

Direct links in emails would be helpful. Also, it would be helpful if our grants accounting people could get 

into the site more easily.

Provide a clear timeline of all reporting that will need to occur by month for the whole FY.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

DOE may inform means and opportunities to share best practices between peers more often. I have not 

received information about this from DOE often yet.

There was hardly any technical assistance beyond a webinar, infrequent contacts, and a couple of 

meetings early on

Collaboration with other grant recipients.

More opportunities for peer-to-peer sharing.

No improvement is necessary! [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] are simply incredible folks!

They are responsive, but there is very little TA. Networking grantees would be helpful.

Our project officer is simply excellent. She responds quickly, carefully, and is easily available to us. As a 

PI, I very much appreciate her approach. She is aces! What we do miss is the interaction among 

project teams and researchers that a face-to-face (or in these days a distance meeting) would provide to 

us. These meetings were a feature of previous Javits experiences. They would be welcome again.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 550

Developing a positive working relationship with one's program officer is critical. We have been fortunate 

to have an excellent program officer. A knowledgeable program officer that offers assistance to help the 

project succeed is an absolute necessity. Feedback and questions answered in a timely fashion are 

crucial when implementing a project. All positive paths lead to a caring and knowledgeable program 

officer.

There has been very minimal technical assistance re: the preceding topics concerning technical 

assistance. As an experienced director of Javits grants, that has not been a problem for our project but I 

would think new directors might need more technical assistance

I do not think that the technical assistance needs improvement as much as ED could facilitate interactive 

and collaborative opportunities for productive intercourse between grantees. Additionally, learning 

opportunities should be made available for grantees to learn and practice skills required to improve grant 

facilitation, data collection, and report preparation. Lastly, ED could offer workshops or online training in 

grant document preparation to encourage and assist potential applicants, thus increasing the number of 

applicants.

Regularly scheduled meetings would be appreciated.

following are criteria that should be considered: 1) greater familiarity with the grant in order to respond to 

questions related to the grant (knowledge further than total budget allocations), 2) information reporting 

that is relevant to the objectives of the grant rather than just compliance, 3) feedback on report content

Networking opportunities.

At the end of our third year, we have yet to convene with other grantees. With the onset of the COVID 

lockdown, any plans for this year have turned virtual and we do have a meeting coming at the end of 

October. I was a GEAR UP grant coordinator and would have loved to see what others were doing who 

received the Javits grant. I am looking forward to our convening in October.

The interactions with our program officer are a pleasure and always helpful. I could learn from other 

grantees as we face the pandemic challenges together.

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

Javits Grant personnel

What is your job role?

Researcher

PI

School District Project Director

PI
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 551

Univeristy faculty

PI

Professor/PI

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

GT - 2020 - Q67.6. What topics would you like discussed during Javits meetings, 

webinars, or phone calls to help you implement a high-quality program?

Whenever I had questions, they were answered promptly through individual emails and phone 

calls. So, I had no problem in implementing my project yet.

Provide guidance beyond what I can read from a slide

I would like to discuss some project challenges to obtain ideas from other Javits programs.

Research models and methods, findings, lessons learned, influence of pandemic on the grant

Organization of information so that reporting will be easier.

There are very few to no meetings or webinars, so any connections would be nice among 

grantees. While the program officer is fantastic, there seems to be little to no commitment from 

US DoE for this program.

We appreciate that how to file reports is a focus of the webinars. Other topics could include 

discussions of data collection challenges in schools and ways to overcome them and ways to 

connect with other Javits grant awardees for collaborative presentations and dissemination 

activities.

How other grantees work successfully with their budget offices in institutions of higher 

education--processes followed, business management systems used, etc.

As I said, since I have extensive experience in directing Javits projects, I am very familiar with 

implementing a Javits project, but new directors may need more technical assistance.

I do not have any at this time.

Upcoming grant opportunities. Best practices on performance measures.

1) the process of decision making and the length of time to receive a decision needs to be more

transparent, 2) an inability for consistent communication within and across grants, 3) greater

communication regarding the outcomes of the grants and their effects on education within and

across states, 4) re-establishing annual research meeting to discuss national grant efforts
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 552

Budget adjustments due to COVID19. Funding predictions.

Honest feedback for where we are in the grant process. Honest feedback and problem solving 

conversations to ensure we stay on track. Examples of other grants from which we might learn.

How have other projects adapted pre-testing and post-test schedules and formats to respond to 

the pandemic? I am particularly interested in test collection from young students.

there's been tremendous amounts of turnover and so the questions are really not applicable 

across each of the program officers we have had assigned to us

Timelines for reports and process for no-cost extensions.

GT - 2020 - Q67.7. Please share any comments and/or ideas on how the Javits team can 

improve its support of your project-specific work.

As mentioned, the performance report form is not appropriate for education project. If the form 

can be revised more appropriately for the education project, it will be great.

Assign people with knowledge of the program who will respond promptly to communications and 

will take the time to be really informed about my project

I can't think of anything. The PO has been awesome.

More communication.

More concentrated capacity building around culturally responsive practices with communities, 

families, and youth.

more peer-to-peer interaction, more consistency in program officers

My biggest concern is the inconsistency of response among the team and delays in response 

that limit the productivity of the project. Communication is inconsistent and intermittent. I

understand that there are many demands on the team's time, but I have gone weeks or months 

without receiving responses to questions and requests for communication.

My project specialists have been very timely with answering my questions and providing 

assistance. They are extremely supportive and want to ensure the success of our grant project.

Network, shared opportunities around identification of gifted students or programming from the 

grant.

Overall I am pleased to be part of the Javits program and grateful for the opportunity to do the 

work. I generally find the reporting process to be reasonable and have in the past found the 

project team to be helpful. In recent months I have seen a substantial decline in that support, 

with messages and requests that go unanswered for weeks at a time. My project progress has 

been significantly hampered by communication delays. I am reluctant to speak so critically of a 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 553

program that I value so much, but the current quality of support and communication is quite 

unsatisfactory.

Perhaps convene a zoom (or other platform meeting) so that new awardees could meet existing 

awardees. That begins to build a cohort of awardees.

Please continue with excellent communication and impeccable customer service. Our program 

officer has been excellent. Hope we will continue with our same program officer. It is difficult 

when there is a change in a program officer during implementation of a project. Consistency is 

and building a relationship with one's program officer is important. Thank you!

Provide optional webinars on topics in gifted education, such as new resources, various G/T 

theories

Reports

Staff turnover at ED has made it stressful and more difficult to operate efficiently and effectively.

The amount of Javits funding available each year is ridiculous. And, it seems that each year 

there is a chance that what little funding exists could be cut. None of this is the fault of program 

staff but does reflect poorly on the federal commitment to gifted/talented students.

The outcomes of the Javits grants need to be disseminated within the Department of Education. 

Please note how NSF has used information from grants to inform educational agencies and the 

public. Javits grants have not had this as a priority in the last 5 years.

Very satisfied about the support I receive.

We appreciate that we now have a project lead who is very responsive, professional, and 

empathetically firm. I wish she had been with us for three years to develop not only our 

relationship, but deep familiarity with what we are trying to accomplish. We are certainly on the 

right path now and I hope we can finish our work together!

We are blessed with our program officer. It is a pleasure and a relief to have access to an 

informative and supportive professional.

Language Resource Centers program

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

It seems the primary audience for the LRC program website is present and prospect grantees. I wish 

there stories about the impact that these grants have including infographics.

I do not have any specific recommendations. It seems to work just fine. I do wish the IRIS interface could 

be updated and maybe a little more user-friendly.

How grant reporting process could be improved?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 554

[REDACTED] is a wonderful grant officer -- she is responsive, clear and always helpful.

The focus on performance is good, in my opinion, but when you get to the third and fourth year of 

performance, there is usually the needs for adjustment so that more meaningful data can be reported. 

Sometimes it's frustrating to see that there are performance measures that were missed and other ones 

that were over or underestimated. There are always fluctuations along the 4 year grant period that are 

difficult to account for.

I think IRIS could use an update. Other than that, we are clear on what data we need to report and what 

the deadlines are.

The numbers and questions are arbitrary and do not give huge insight into impact or reach. The 

benchmarks are clear, but also shift as a project develops to it makes the reporting process less useful.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

The Dept of Ed staff are outstanding. It has always been a joy to work with them.

I always received superb technical assistance from IFLE. Whenever I had doubts, they have been very 

quick to respond and very accurate and clear in their responses.

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

LRC - 2020 - Q31.2. How can Language Research Centers improve the usefulness of the 

technical assistance you receive?

Keep doing what you are doing.

Magnet Schools Assistance Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I have not used it recently and would not be able to speak to that.

I rarely use the OESE website and rely on the MSAP Center site. Mostly, I use the OESE site when I am 

writing the grant to look at prior funded projects but the last time I did that was over three years ago. 

Most recently, I do believe I looked at the site for our program officer's contact information and I was able 

to find it.

N/A

Although it has improved over the years, it is still somewhat difficult to find what I am looking for when I 

search the website itself. For example, when searching for past awarded grants (PDFs, samples, etc.) 

there are a lot of website links/pages you have to click through or go through in order to specifically find 

what I am looking for.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 555

Provide recorded webinars to watch at a later point. List resources for recruitment and marketing. Share 

links and resources that have been useful for other Magnet Schools.

Greater clarity, ease in finding contact information for individuals.

It would be nice if they might streamline or categorize information in larger chunks, so it might take fewer 

clicks to get where you need to go.

NA

I do not have a response at this time.

No suggestions

Perhaps links or contacts in states/districts working on similar projects/implementation.

When searching for specific information, I often have to type in the search multiple times until I have the 

right verbiage that will find what I'm looking for. That is not an unusual issue when searching for 

information.

No suggestions at this time.

The website has provided what I need and in order to support all partners, continue to update information 

regularly.

Under 'Grantees and Applicants', it only shows information pertaining to Charters and Migrant Education. 

It would be very helpful and inclusive if 'Magnet' was included.

N/A

The website is user friendly and easy to navigate through.

How grant reporting process could be improved?

No recommendations at this time.

The least useful data to report and the most difficult to obtain is the GPRA data and I realize that is a 

requirement for the program office's report to Congress. The first year, reporting requirements were 

much more confusing, as we were given multiple documents with different instructions/guidance on the 

same reporting item. This has improved immensely and I appreciate that.

Address real issues related to the impact of the pandemic.

The data collection is the biggest headache especially with working with the enrollment and application 

data because we are having to add data for each school/site and each subgroup, grade level group, etc. 

It is very tedious. Data we entered in April's APR should be pre-populated and grayed for October's AD-
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 556

HOC that would be the same data being reporting (ie- lottery application). Also, for the GRAD360 it is not 

user-friendly and seems to be redundant information.

Streamline and eliminate sections that may not be necessary or needed.

Clarity in guidance.

The questions in the executive summary replicate some of the questions within the report itself. For 

example, we are asked to discuss whether we were able to reduce MGI in question # 6 (?) of the 

executive summary, but there is a separate question within the MAPS site that asks the same question. 

A thorough screening to reduce redundancy would be helpful.

NA

No response at this time.

no suggestions

N/A

NA

Provide a better option for explaining progress or lack of progress related to the project. Reporting the 

budget narrative is cumbersome.

It is difficult to create one reporting process that applies to school districts from all across the country. 

Districts are all different sizes with an array of school choice policies and procedures in place. With all 

those structural differences and variables in mind, the current grant reporting process is relatively easy to 

follow and complete.

Provide feedback on the APR and Ad Hoc submissions. Additionally, provide Project Directors with 

specific details about the report and if the grantee is on track with the federal expectations.

It is understandable that the pandemic affected everyone; however, some of the information that we have 

to report does not take this into consideration. Understandably, this information should be included in the 

narrative but test data, for example, should be 'grayed out' for this reporting period.

It would help to be compassionate when dealing with world crises such as a pandemic. Maybe offer an 

extension if needed to some districts.

MAPS times out too quickly resulting in lost data.

N/A

The process is clear.

The reporting could be improved with the ability to upload or append data from excel directly to the site.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 557

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

I would like to have more connections with other STEM/STEAM schools.

TA is not individualized and/or differentiated. I find that most of the sessions are at a basic level which is 

sometimes appropriate for us, but often not. There is almost no opportunity for peer sharing, except at 

the project directors' meeting. Pieces of those meetings are helpful, but there are still too many large 

group sessions that are primarily meaningless. The smaller sessions where you select a topic of interest 

tend to be better, as long as they are well planned and well facilitated. It's been hit or miss. I have 

worked on other federal grants where the TA provider has regular contact with your project, and has 

content area knowledge. They are able to connect you with resources, experts, and other grantees who 

may have experience related to your issue or may be grappling with the same issue. The MSAP Center 

staff do not seem to be content area experts, and that is not the role that they fill. They are extremely 

helpful and responsive when it comes to the reporting system. Some other areas of the website are less 

helpful because the included material is old. The site might be more helpful if some of the older 

information was archived.

The department barely acknowledged issues related to COvID-19. There is been little to no 

communication regarding how we adjust.

More information about what technical assistance can be provided; More check-ins with grantees for 

needs/assistance, more technical assistance available than webinars.

No feedback at this time.

Contact grantees to inquire as to what support is needed.

I think a clear FAQ sheet or overview outlining what services they intend to provide would be helpful.

NA

No elaboration for this question at this time. [REDACTED]

no suggestions

none

Nothing at this time.

The assistance needs to be more individualized and address issues as they relate to the specific project.

The combination of ongoing technical assistance from individual staff members along with everything 

typically provided at the annual MSAP Project Directors meeting has always met or exceeded the needs 

and expectations of local team members.

The technical assistance received has been sufficient in supporting the work of the grantee.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 558

The webinars assumes that everyone at the same point in the grant process. There should be webinars 

for specific areas rather than a 'one-size, fits all' approach.

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

I receive emails from both REL and EAC. I sometimes read resources that they have linked in those 

emails and if I recall correctly I and/or staff participated in at least one of their webinars. I haven't 

received individual support (and I have not requested/expected it) so it's hard to remember exactly where 

resources are coming from.

Msap center

MSAP Technical Assistance Center

MSAP Technical Assistance Center

MSAP Technical Assistance Center has assisted with the grant reporting as well as assisting in identified 

service providers for professional development needs.

online professional development.

[REDACTED]

What is your job role?

Assistant Superintendent

Assistant Superintendent

MSAP Project Director

Mental Health Demonstration Grants program

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I have not used this website but will do so in the future. Marketing of the availability and resources for 

this site would increase traffick.

I really have no substantive suggestions at this time. I like the way the site is organized.

I think that sharing success stories from programs is vital for all of our work. Could this be in combination 

with a social media platform to spread the word on good work being demonstrated?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 559

No recommendation at this time.

Promote and market it more, I honestly did not know that mush about it.

I think the website is fine.

None.

I have not accessed the website yet. I just tried as I was filling out this survey and was not able to reach 

the website.

Overall, I believe the website is laid out well. When dealing with such a large amount of information, it 

can be difficult to make it one-step accessible. Perhaps in the search area increasing the amount of 

words that would help link specific information.

Consistently updated with current and upcoming events, etc.

I have not looked at it since the redesign.

I need more assistance with making changes in line items

How grant reporting process could be improved?

Exemplar example of a completed report would be helpful.

Specifically how data is used that is reported is not known. The session held to provide guidance on 

what's needed in the report is helpful.

I know that the G5 system is being upgraded. I have had fairly good success with it.

Training should be provided early in the process for collecting and reporting accurate requirements on 

time. It has often felt like we don't know of the requirements in time to collect and report. When indicators 

are changed we need around 12 months notice.

The reporting process is fine.

None

A little more warning of when the reporting meetings will take place for ease of scheduling.

Since this is a demonstration grant, I believe we're all learning together as to the best ways to report and 

what information needs to be reported. Overall, the department has been very helpful in navigating this 

process.

GPRA measures on the MHPD demonstration is grant are not reflective of the services and activities 

being provided by the grants. The RFP was to increase mental health professionals in schools and the 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 560

GPRA measures are restricting these mental health professionals to be employed by the LEA. Shouldn't 

the goal be to determine more students are receiving much needed services as opposed to just 

measuring if LEAs are increasing the employment rates???

The templates are quite a pain to work with. Either let me submit in Word or PDF doc. Fitting the 

information into the template is tedious and time consuming and quite unnecessary for the necessity of 

the lengthy written responses needed. The excel sheets however are excellent.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

TA and Department staff are excellent resources!

Provide specific resources to assist with grant management would be appreciated.

I don't think this can be improved at this time. We have regular technical assistance meetings monthly as 

a grant program group, and we also individual program assistance meetings (also monthly).

More often

AIR has provided the best TA that I have ever had the pleasure of working with.

I am happy with the assistance we receive.

[REDACTED] is amazing! She is responsive and helpful and always available for a question!

Our TA person [REDACTED] and his colleagues are very responsive and helpful. I cannot think of any 

improvements needed.

Our technical advisor has been excellent. He listens to our concerns, guides us appropriately, provides 

excellent resources to enhance our grant's offerings to parents, students and staff.

Time is a valuable commodity for everyone working in the schools right now. Making sure meetings are 

kept to providing relevant information only with limited social interaction or just providing the information 

via emails or setting up chatrooms for questions only would be helpful instead of 1-2 hour webinars or 

zoom meetings.

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

CADRE

[REDACTED]

National Center for Safe and Supportive Learning Environments

NCSSLE
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 561

NCSSLE

T4PA, REMS, NCSSLE, Education Northwest

What is your job role?

Office Directot

Migrant Education Programs (Title I, Part C)

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Can't easily find information. Results website is the go to for information.

One general search button that would cross reference all areas on the site, not just the spot you're 

viewing, would be great.

Adding new headers such as 'hot topics' or 'current issues'

I use RESULTS more than I do department website because I find it easier.

If referring to the Results site, it is very useful. If referring to the U.S. Department of Education's website, 

there are several clicks needed in order to find what you want.

None at this time.

More updated information and user friendly. Improve how to search information.

Including more visuals that connect to student services.

I have used the Results.gov website extensively and find everything I need there. It is an excellent 

website. I haven't looked at this website.

No suggestions at this time.

Provide more updates within the Title I Part C - Migrant Program.

More options for easier navigation

Make it easier to find from the main ed.gov website. The results.ed.gov website should be linked on the 

MEP section somewhere. Could not find it. Funding appropriates seems to be very outdated. I could not 

find the current (or any) Title I-C monitoring document. There is just a description of monitoring.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 562

N/A

No suggestions

Much of the guidance that is truly helpful with the migrant program is on the results.ed.gov page. It was 

tough to find a link to that resource. Some of the true resources seem hidden. I recall there previously 

being much more guidance provided on this page. I understand not wanting to duplicate information but 

making it easier to find the page where the information is located would be helpful.

I just do not feel that I find what I am looking for many times.

Make the projected allocations more easily accessible.

Make it more user friendly, easier to find relevant documents.

Have more up to date information regarding grant awards regarding HEP CAMP

more user friendly and maybe QA section

N/A

Make the section of the law a one-click link.

No improvement necessary.

How grant reporting process could be improved?

webinars should have level of experience incorporated into planning (differentiate)

It's fine for people that have been through it a few times, but if new to completing it seems that some of 

the content might require more clarification. There is so much to learn with migrant education.

Set the same due date for all reporting data files.

It is confusing that two groups seem to be involved in the process so that double work is sometimes 

required. OME provides excellent support and resources.

This program has more reporting requirements than Title IA does and the allocations are very small 

compared to Title IA.

The presentations prior to CSPR could be improved upon.

User friendly materials and information.

Include and or deliver a mentor/guide for new state directors.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 563

Some CSPR narratives questions need to be broken down into discrete questions/or sub-questions 

rather than asking for a lot of different information in a single response.

No suggestions at this time.

By making submission steps clearer.

Pleased with process

It would have been nice to know which CIG we belonged to prior to funds being issued.

It would be helpful it you provided more guidance on each of the MDEs. For example, define what you 

mean by chronic or acute for the Medical Alert MDE. It would also be helpful if you reconsidered the 

timeframes in which we need to get some of the MDEs into MSIX. For example, the course history MDE 

timelines are difficult to meet.

N/A

We report so much, more than most other programs. Review data and prioritize the most important data 

needed for program management.

It feels like a duplicated step when we already submit the majority of this information through MSIX.

During the pandemic and disasters state experienced this year, data reporting takes a back seat to the 

health and well being. It maybe best to use the 2018-19 data for allocations to account foe the variance 

that will be seen in the data.

Stop using 1990s era excel spreadsheets for input of textual data. These are extremely difficult to work 

with/enter information into. The Migrant reporting requirements are extremely onerous and time 

consuming. Find a way to streamline.

Better technical assistance in completing the reports - in laymans terms. Make the spreadsheets and 

requested templates more user friendly.

More frequent and shorter feedback documents needed.

streamline it

getting award letters as early in the spring as possible so we can have actual allocations loaded to 

districts instead of giving out estimates and having to re-allocate later

The process and comments we receive in feedback seem to differ from year to year.

The CSPR process has changed every year in the last three years. I appreciate efforts to simplify but 

sometimes that change actually makes it more confusing and then more difficult.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 564

more diversity in program representation as many states' profiles are not exemplified in the 3-4 state 

programs that are usually present and share

When I need questions answered, it's usually something I need quickly. Sometimes I have to consult with 

other directors to receive information more timely to my need.

Share best practices that are applicable to states' needs/demographics

More opportunity for State Director calls and more ways for states to share information and resources 

with each other. On calls, it seems as if large states with large amount of resources are highlighted. This 

is not very helpful for states with limited MEP staff and resources.

The technical assistance provided is boring in presentation style.

None

Schedule one on one orientation meetings with new directors.

Continue to offer webinars on a variety of topics as is done now. No change needed.

The MEP staff has been underserved for a significant amount of time. I am glad they have hired 

additional staff this year to support the program at the national level which in turn is beneficial for the 

state programs.

Provide more trainings.

Small cluster meetings to discuss best practices; more efficient response to questions submitted

Update the non-regulatory guidance. Only Chapter II has been updated. It would be nice to have the 

other sections be updated to reflect current terminology and references.

n/a

no suggestions

As with any organization, ongoing training would be more useful than one long training opportunity. 

Recently a change was mentioned about external reinterviewing and it was shared the handbook/training 

materials wouldn't be updated to reflect that change. (that's a very abbreviated version). These materials 

should be ever-changing and reflective of current practices/expectations.

Anytime an answer is provided to a state, provide it to all the states. Also, arm program staff with legal 

support to respond quicker to pandemic related questions.

Answering emails in a timely manner.

Develop cohorts of MEP state personnel based on years of experience

use real life scenarios to explain nuances of eligibility
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 565

technical assistance has been beyond amazing..from calls to more frequent emails..just waiting anxiously 

to hear more about the allocations for next year based on the migrant low numbers this year due to 

COVID

Too many times the answers to questions that I have are not answered or it takes way too long to get an 

answer or at least a discussion. We need more conversations with program staff and not so much being 

fed information

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

Comprehensive Centers-RC15

Comprehensive Center

regional lab

What is your job role?

Program Manager

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

MEP - 2020 - Q40.1. How can the program office’s services be improved over the next 

year to better meet the needs of new State Directors in implementing the MEP? (Please 

cite specific recommendations).

strengthen the mentoring program; provide networking opportunities;

When I started there were mentors. That was a great help to me. Maybe a list of directors and a 

variety of related topics regarding migrant education, who would be a good source to contact for 

further clarification on questions that arise. Maybe a mentor hotline to call for general questions.

Clearly, provide steps and explain responsibilities of their role as State Directors.

Continue the ADM, even if virtual, increase interactions among states, and easier mechanism to 

share state models, I really appreciate the level of support provided by OME. I work with other 

Federal Programs, and no other office is as responsive or accessible.

Continue with the mentor program and continue to build in time and opportunities for directors to 

network and work together on tasks.

Different presentation style; better marketing style in presenting products and TA.

Expedite responses to state questions in a more timely manner way.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 566

Facilitate collaboration between new Directors and experienced State Directors

I believe the communication piece with state directors would help to achieve better success with 

program implementation at the staet level.

I think partnering a new director with an experienced director has been very beneficial. 

Continue to have the Annual Director's Meeting. When conferences resume, continue to offer 

sessions at national migrant conferences (e.g. NASDME, ID&R Forum). Continue to call in at 

IMEC meetings. Continue to offer newsletters. I would say continue everything you are 

currently doing.

Increase the number of OME staff so the OME team has adequate time to support state MEP's. 

Especially since the program has numerous new state directors.

It needs to improve the system for answering questions within a reasonable time frame.

Just more efficient response to questions

Mentoring of new state director Additional opportunities for communication with other states

More guidance on how to leverage Title I-C funds during this pandemic. Provide more guidance 

on supplement, not supplant under the Title I-C program. It would be helpful to receive guidance 

or considerations we need to think through when 'braiding' Title I-C funds with other programs.

n/a

not sure

ongoing training, perhaps connecting new state coordinators with other new state coordinators 

for support. I found this through my CIG and it greatly enhanced my understanding and 

program. Make the materials more user friendly for training through the Results site. Have a 

shortcut guide for where to look for information within the documentation. Any personal 

connection would also be helpful.

organized mentoring opportunities for new and existing staff. monthly webinars

Please respond to questions that we have. In the past I have always been please with the turn 

around time when I have had questions pertaining to my program. In the past 2 years there 

have been many times that my questions were never answered. I have been in this role for 

many many years so the questions I have need answer from US ED.

Provide more timely responses and guidance anticipating pandemic challenges

Reform in the data collection area, streamline, simplify and provide modern platforms for input.

Responding to emails in a timely manner across the board.

The meeting in March is vital to the success of the MEP. Please find a way to offer the 

presentations virtually during the pandemic.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 567

Understand the complexity of service delivery, student assessment and identification and 

recruitment on the ground with respect to COVID-19 and other emerging changes taking place 

currently in school districts.

will definitely miss the face to face annual ADM meeting so hoping we can continue the ADM 

new coordinators strand virtually.

MEP - 2020 - Q40.2. Please check up to three technical assistance topics that you will 

need in the future, in order to improve the performance of your MEP.

Please select a maximum of three topics below.

how is the pandemic going to affect the funding formula and CSPR data

Need help in learning how to help students finish the high school credits started in one state but 

not being completed before moving to another. Some, during disntance learning were continuing 

to complete via distance learning from their previous state to
Final Report

2020 568

Department of Education Office of Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey 

Minority Science and Engineering Improvement 

Program 

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

The website is not user-friendly. I had to call technical support. Is there a video to watch to emphasize 

most frequent searches?

More attractive icons

Probably have a dedicated area for research away from the other parts of the mission.

N/A

I do not use the website.

nothing to add at this time

It is excellent.

MSEIP information needs to be updated.

The biggest thing I noted was that with searches you can obtain too many hits. It would be great if one 

could search within the results.

I notice the Funding Status page is out-of-date.

I am very happy with the responses that I receive from MSEIP staff and Program Officer. I am very 

comfortable using the website.

I have not used the website.

N/A

N/A

A news letter on updated features of the website would be helpful to those who are not on the website 

daily.

I think is fine the way it is. All the relevant information is available.

NA

How grant reporting process could be improved?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 569

Is there a step-by-step guide / checklist to ensure that everything is done for the grant reporting process?

Uniformity of reports with proposals submitted.

The mandatory options of the form need to be modified to accomodate the idiocyncracy of projects, 

institutions and project directors.

N/A

Linking the objectives to expenditures makes it challenging. The NSF model for reporting should be 

considered because it is straightforward.

Streamline the data/narratives that are requested. Align the grant reporting requests with the goals of the 

underlying grants. Reduce the number of items that must be reported.

I do appreciate the common data that is used by MSEIP. We can then quantify apples to apples.

It is excellent.

Make it clear where to find APR information.

Make the reports due same time each year with early notifications of what is required; provide recordings 

from webinars to allow for easy playback when submitting. Also, the use of the digital reporting was 

great.

Nothing I can think of.

I wish the word limits were a little longer.

More time to prepare the application, more clarity about what is required.

Certain sections of the template of the 'Higher Education Programs Institutional Services - Title III and V 

Grant Programs Annual Performance Report: In Section 2, there are too many questions asked on the 

template in this section. Also, many questions in this section are not applicable to the project, and in 

applicable cases, having to report initial numbers and final numbers is not applicable.

N/A

N/A

Reporting should be simpler. National Science Foundation has a much shorter yet effective reporting 

system. No cost extension request is much easier with other agencies.

The website for submitting reports does not allow us to insert any figures/photos.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 570

N/A

None, the involvement has been very useful.

None

N/A

Providing information that would be useful in improving minority institutions rather than activities others 

do that is interesting but not necessarily helpful.

I've never used the technical assistance, so I have no feedback here.

Excellent assistance has been beneficial to the execution of our grant program and ultimately to our 

undergraduate STEM students.

We do not technical assistance. Thank you !

Haven't had enough experience with technical assistance to rate.

Nothing at this time.

I found them to be very responsive, so no suggestions.

none

The Director's meeting is very helpful to project success. The program director seems to be a one-person 

operation, and adding more staff to assist would improve capacitor to meet needs of the many projects in 

the portfolio.

What is your job role?

Educator/Administrator

Associate Professor-CoPI

Project Director

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

MSEIP - 2020 - Q17.2. How can MSEIP improve the usefulness of the technical assistance 

you receive?

N/A
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 571

None

None

N/A

PI meetings could be better organized; substantive feedback would be helpful.

I haven't used technical assistance, so I don't have feedback here.

Questions are addressed in the most timely manner. Assistance and clarifications are most 

promptly provided by MSEIP Program manager.

You are doing very good now.

Haven't really experienced technical assistance to be able to rate.

Additional assistance for the program manager.

MSEIP - 2020 - Q17.5. What can the MSEIP do to improve communication with you?

Realizing that grantees could be at different points of the grant cycle, communication should be 

specific to clearly inform and help everyone know of the actions that should be taken.

None. [REDACTED] provides very robust and complete information both verbally and in writing.

None

N/A

Be more specific on what is needed.

Communication lines are always open and available to any grant PI or ORSP officer from the 

university. Overall communication is well established and welcomed.

You are doing excellent.

Respond to emails.

The virtual plataform for hosting meetings has to be updated. Last time videos could not be 

seen.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 572

MSEIP - 2020 - Q17.8. How would you advise on improving the overall process and 

protocols associated with this grant competition?

Clear communications to explain the process at different phases.

Improve coordiation between award date and academic year

It is well managed and the program director is an excellet manager and provides guidance to 

help me provide educational support to the students who need it badly. [REDACTED] is an 

extremely supportive program director who proactively encourages me always to increase 

minority student participation. Having worked with other program officers in other funding 

agencies, [REDACTED] proactive interaction is extremely beneficial and certainly, to my 

experience, unique.

N/A

Not sure.

The expectations of grant awardees should be clearly delineated in the program announcement 

and negotiated with the awardees prior to final contracting.

This grant is a capacity-building grant and as such needs to continue perhaps for more than a 3-

year period. I suggest 5 years with being able to actually quantify graduates in a real-time 

manner. The current 3 years does allow for trendlines, but not actual graduates to be 

determined.

You are doing excellent.
Final Report

2020 573

Department of Education Office of Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey 

National Professional Development 

Program 

CORE QUESTIONS Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

The electronic platform for submitting the Annual Performance Report had a few glitches. Seems we 

couldn't put in information because a change in policy nationally had not been updated in the platform 

and we couldn't input specific information. Nobody at G5 or our Program Officer could figure it out. We 

submitted what we could after notifying the PO of the problem. All seemed to go through in the end.

Data on English Learners (ELs) more easily accessible and cross referenced with free/reduced lunch, 

special education etc. to see how many ELs also fall in these categories.

I do not use the department website - my information sources are my program officer and officials at 

OELA. They have been excellent.

I find it helpful as is.

It would be great if we could receive emails that are 'flagged' for special announcements such as 

upcoming RFPs, studies or other pertinent info that we can readily access.

It is all business, which Is the priority. Might want to hire someone with art or design background to make 

it more visually appealing. But it is fine... it works. I'd rather it work than look sexy. But is it ugly.

I think the website is well designed and I have always found the information I was looking for. Maybe, 

there could be more links (when appropriate) to specific NCES content.

Regular updates would help.

I like the resources and layout currently on website

N/A

With more pictures.

NA

more icons, more Mac like would make things easier for us technically challenged folks.

I think it is fine as is

Perhaps by offering more frequent updates, and also by improving the KMS system's navigability.

The look and feel are outdated to the point that I don't know how to find things. There are too many 

different ways to progress or open a next level--and not in a redundant way. Redundancy (as in a link in 

a navigation bar with hierarchy as well as within text) would be good, but in too many cases it's a matter 

of the menu for one thing but a text link or header for another. I would be nice if grant programs had 

more prominent pages within the site and links to info about individual grant programs were included. 

Right now, the whole thing just seems a mess--a holdover structure that people are doing their best to 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 574

work within even though they know it's impractical and even embarrassing. It would also be good if 

things were more transparent. Along with posting the RFPs from the past two NPD competitions, why 

not include an actual statement that acknowledges another competition won't occur before ___ and 

there's no guarantee there will be one then. That seems honest and forthright. It would look so much 

better than making it seem that it's either a secret or that no one cares enough to update the website 

since the last competition (so the RFPs have just been left there).

It could use an update to look fresh and user friendly so it would attract more educators.

It reads like a county records website. There are just links to official documents.

I am not a good person to suggest improvements, since the websites that I design are not as good.

The present website is very formative and informative and I believe reaches its purpose.

ease of use. staff contact information more readily available

easier ways to navigate the website and find items.

My major challenge has be G5. The website is not easy to navigate, especially, when you are trying to 

upload a report.

If you are referring to this website https://www2.ed.gov/programs/nfdp/index.html I rarely have a need to 

use it. I use other pages on the ed.gov website quite a bit but not this one. I think it's useful for people 

applying for a grant - especially the FAQs -- but I didn't know those existed until now.

It would be helpful if grantees could speak directly to the people in the finance office for support.

The ED.gov site always seems out of date, I cannot find what I am looking for, and when I find something 

it seems very out of date.

The data on rural English learners across the country is inconsistent depending on the site I look at. They 

are various tables but none accurately capture that population.

How grant reporting process could be improved?

Make sure the reporting platform is updated to fit with national requirements.

We need more time lag between time report period ends and when report is due for reporting budgetary 

expenses accurately. 30 days is not enough. We need at least a 60 day time lag. Directions for 

completing reports should be available on reporting document and not buried in a memo.

The webinars are good to remind grantees of any changes required in the reporting.

There are two different reporting mechanisms - the Knowledge Mgmt System (KMS) for OELA, and the 

Annual Grant system for ED. It is confusing to have two different systems, even though they overlap in 

content. Further, the budget page on the KMS system has never worked properly - it is difficult to enter or 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 575

change amounts when budgets change. There are two separate sections for Grant Performance 

Measures and Activities, yet they appear to be asking for the same data.

More reminders for completing the reports.

There is a question feature, but it seems questions don't get answered? For example, on KMS reporting, 

the budget did not align with our numbers due to the fact that there were two month unaccounted for in 

the reporting. So we asked about it, no response? It still hasn't been rectified?? Also, when filling out 

reports and some clarifying info is requested, the system cuts you off after so many characters. Maybe, 

the character length could be extended or a note stating maximum characters.

I like how we receive email notification that you receive our report.

I would love to know more about how you evaluate what we send in. Is there a team, a rubric, just 

curious. I think it would help me report.

Sometimes the platform used to submit reports have not been working properly or had data that dis not 

match our records. It would be useful to reconcile the data in the platform before making it available.

Improving KMS format

I have not recommendations. The reporting process has been smooth for us. When in doubt of a 

question our Project Officer is always supportive.

Manhattan Strategy needs to be more responsive.

The use of percentages in reporting objectives does not align well to our project.

Keep the same reporting method.

NA

one system would be great vs. KMS and G5 as well as allowing two passwords. This would allow our 

Project Evaluators to access the reports on their own. This would have been so much help during this 

pandemic. It would make work easier for us to have our own password/access as well as the evaluator...

The KMS system requires quarterly updates which is quite burdensome on grantees who are also 

managing projects. It might be more effective to have a biannual system. The KMS system can be very 

glitchy and sometimes does not allow for the uploading of data.

Both G5 and KMS are clunky. There are many steps involved in that you most often have to create fields 

and then complete them, and those processes vary from one section of the report to the next. 

Simplifying that and making it more consistent across a single report form would help. But it would also 

be helpful if we could have fields repopulated each time using the previous report's data. Often my 

statements are the same in terms of narrative--it's just the budget or participant numbers that change. 

Perhaps there could be an extra button that says 'accept prepopulated entry' or something of that nature 

so people wouldn't forget to actually update sections that need it, but there ought to be a way to 

streamline that aspect.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 576

The KMS and G5 could align more closely. I have two program-based performance outcomes that don't 

match in the KMS and G5. Otherwise, both are simple to use.

The KMS system is clunky and has a lot of limitations. It also doesn't line up well with what we have to 

prepare for our annual report in G5.

Challenges arise primarily from the changes in grant reporting systems (technology) since our grant was 

originally awarded, coupled with 'annual' reporting dates that do not align (e.g. institutional fiscal year, 

grant year, and DOE reporting deadlines).

We (our group) thinks the grant reporting process is as good as it can be, given the diverse nature of the 

different funded projects. In other words, funded projects vary in their objectives. This is necessary to 

make them adaptable to local and regional needs. This variability, however, creates challenges in 

reporting. Thus, keeping things the way they are makes sense, in order to allow for the necessary 

flexibility in the nature of projects.

We are happy in the way that all the key information is provided and on time.

ease of use of system modules for reporting standards

Better interface for data collection. Less confusing entry of data points (ration, percentages, raw 

numbers). Eliminate redundancy, like collecting the IRB documents every time we have a report or the 

IDC paperwork. Some of these items should be collected once, unless grantee status has changed.

The two different reporting systems are organized very differently and we just recently found out that 

there are issues with data in the two systems not agreeing even though information we put in was 

accurate for the time period in which it was put in. It would be so much easier for grantees if there was 

just one consistent reporting system that we used each time.

Using both the G5 and KMS systems has been difficult in that it feels like they do not 'speak' to each 

other. Also, the budget numbers do not align across the two systems (months included in the G5 annual 

report, for example, are not necessarily visible in the KMS). It makes for a lot of confusion and 

uncertainty around which set of numbers is most accurate.

Going back and forth between two systems (G5 and the KMS) is a real challenge. Navigating each site 

has its own challenges. There are character limits making it impossible at times to provide needed 

information (which can result in requests being rejected). The entire system should be redeveloped from 

scratch. When done, PLEASE get input from people who will actually have to use this.

Consider interface between KMS and G5 system. KMS does not allow grants to populate APR data 

submission, thus requiring additional explanation in notes section, or seemingly mismatch of information 

(e.g. budget section) due to the fact that 'quarter 3' information (APR) is not reflected in KMS. Narrative 

uploads and sections in both KMS and G5 allow us to detail quantitative information in progress charts; 

yet the number and or percentage/ratios do not allow us to fully reflect progress toward grant goals on an 

annual basis.

Every time I have to write the quarterly report I have to add the GPRA measures each time. I also wonder 

why it keeps asking me if my external evaluator is WWC certified? It seems like the same questions are 

asked each quarter and I don't know why when they apply for the entire Grant.

Feedback loop from PO - we assume, no news is good news.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 577

Having three different report forms over the year has been a bit of a challenge. (form 1 - Updates 1 and 

2; form 2 - the annual report; form 3 - update 3) It would be helpful if Update 3 was more aligned with 

the annual report or with Updates 1 and 2 so that we were providing updates based only on summer 

activities, rather than reporting again on the full year, but in a different format (i.e. percent on target).

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

Make sure formats are update.

Our program officer is excellent. Our main issue is with budgetary reporting.

OELA provides excellent TA. All of my questions are answered promptly and accurately.

Non at this time

When I had issues with accessing my information, I've always been able to get a quick response and 

resolution.

Samples of how best to share our project's results and outcomes. You may have access to a variety of 

examples.

I know you encourage inter grant discussion but I don't think KMS is great for that.

Their work in this regard has been personable and outstanding.

Taking communication/experience sharing among grantees out of KMS.

I have no recommendations.

The webinars and podcasts are resources which help support communication and dissemination of 

project activities.

N/A

NA

Providing levels of training, for example training for new directors and then training for veteran directors. 

Some of the training seems to be for novice directors and repetitive for those of us who have had OELA 

grants for many years.

More webinars featuring components of NPDs that are both working and not working. It would be great if 

we could just have our own little ongoing conference throughout the year. We need to have more 

examples of successful project components, but we also need to hear from people willing to discuss what 

they've tried that didn't work. Right now, it still feels like much of our work is secretive--as if we're having 

to cover our papers to keep our neighbor from cheating off us when doing a test in elementary school. 

Let's change that culture. In fact, let's go a step further and make it so that we develop an OER 

collection of online modules, instructional materials, observation and evaluation tools, assignments with 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 578

rubrics, etc. One thing that made me think this: In a poster session I visited in the online poster time 

this year, one group discussed online modules that they're offering for free to teachers through their 

program. I asked if I could have temporary access (such as 'view only' or the like) just to get a sense of 

how they had organized and packaged things. The whole group was very willing during the online 

session and asked for my email address to do so. It never happened. Concern over intellectual 

property? Not wanting to divulge the secret of their success? Either/both/something else? Whatever the 

reason, let's get over ourselves and decide this is actually about moving forward in terms of supporting 

multilingual learners. Let's be a community rather than a symptom of a meritocracy.

They have provided prompt and responsive technical assistance. They are always eager to help and they 

resolve issues promptly in a professional manner.

I think the program officers and leaders of OELA provide helpful, prompt, and courteous support. I've 

gotten every question answered almost immediately and am very grateful to have them as a ready 

partner when needed.

The job that is done is tremendous. We are not sure how to improve their efforts.

I think the way that the technical assistance is handle and provided is very good.

Better feedback on our reports and assistance with instrument/tool development.

I am always pleased with OELA staff support.

I have no idea. I have not received any technical assistance outside of the project director's meetings. I 

think most of the support I receive has come from my individual project officer and from that conference. I 

am lucky to have a lot of mentorship available at my university and I have relied on this.

I would love to learn more about what other grantees are doing beyond the annual meeting poster 

sessions.

N/A

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

How to work with culturally diverse groups.

L2TREC

Equity Assistance Center at IDRA in San Antonio delivered two workshops for pre-service teachers and 

education faculty.

WestEd provided resources for moving family literacy events to a virtual format.

Manhattan Strategy group

We receive technical assistance through the regional laboratories and other centers by reading their 

different agendas of work.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 579

What is your job role?

primary investigator

Project PI and director

PI/Project Director

P.I.

PI Director

Project Director

faculty

Principal Investigator

Professor
Final Report

2020 580

Department of Education Office of Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey 

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

NPD - 2020 - Q2.11. What, if any, improvements have you seen in OELA over the last 

year?

Because of the COVID pandemic, going virtual for meetings will be an improvement to fly to 

Washington, DC.

Flexibility to deal with COVID crisis.

Great improvement in Technical support.

Have been satisfied with OELA's TA and communications. Have not seen any improvements, do 

not feel any are needed in my case.

I don't use Facebook

I have always found OELA to be very responsive. Very high quality program officers and 

support provided

I have enjoyed the yearly planning of fall meetings. It appeared to be every other year, but now, 

it seems to be scheduled every year, even if it's virtual this fall.

I like all the webinars that are offered but I can't attend them all. It would be great if you stored 

them at NCELA or are you doing that?

I think OELA has made an effort to work closer with project directors and connect resources 

between different programs. This culture of collaboration has been very beneficial.

More webinars

More webinars and resources.

More webinars, receive more resources from my officer, more newsletters. Overall, more 

communication with grantees.

My program officer is very responsive to the needs of my project.

N/A

NA

New Exec. Director

none
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 581

Project staff have been extremely patient during this year of a global pandemic. All staff have 

been paragons of what true educators should be--continuing to offer the highest quality of 

services with flexibility and compassion.

The effects of the pandemic have made the staff more attentive to grantees and interactive in 

terms of finding ways to meet needs based on individual projects. The pace of webinars 

(general offerings that are PD-oriented and not about technical aspects of reporting) has 

increased dramatically, and content is good. How do we keep up this momentum in the postpandemic world (such as it will be)?

The KMS has improved significantly. The newsletters are more regular. OELA has put out 

webinars to respond to current needs. OELA has made available materials to help families with 

COVID information. The Facebook page had nice feature posts. My PO checked in with me 

more often. OELA added new products about ELs to disseminate to educators. They reached 

out to experts to feature best practices for family engagement during COVID. They were 

proactive with mitigating potential losses to programs during the pandemic. The award renewal 

process was faster.

The program officers are trying to run interference for the problems with KMS, so they mitigate 

any apprehension or frustration with users of that system.

They are responsive and try to provide support as soon as it is needed.

This Program Officer is very knowledgeable and responsive. More sharing of resources and 

best practices. ...Thank you!

We have seen a great sensitivity to the needs of the projects during COVID-19. It has been 

such a relief to know that the OELA has the flexibility and the wisdom to understand the 

dynamics of what it takes to keep these projects moving forward during a pandemic.

Yes, I have seen multiple improvements in the Office of English Language Acquisition (OELA) 

including key information to provide better services through our PD services.

Native American and Alaska Native Children in School Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

More program photos & feature grantees' blogs more prominently for 'funding in action' or 'in the field' 

examples demonstrating importance of impacts

it is just terrible. It is not visually appealing. right now i can't even get on it. i have to click around to find 

things. sometimes I never find them. i really hate it

I think it is ok. Shorter and specific is always good.

Grantee guidance in terms that use less 'legalese' and topic specific terms. For example educators tend 

to speak in education terms that most of their patrons do not understand. The same happens with federal 

agencies particularly when they use acronyms that are not widely known by grantees. GPRA is a good 

example of a term that is used while grantees will learn the acronyms over the term of a grant they attend 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 582

initial trainings that are critical to the operation of the grant before they understand the vocabulary of the 

presenters. They often leave with more questions than they had before the trainings and then are unable 

to find the topic on the website.

Good Website-Easier to use than most No suggestions

I find useful information on the website already. Thank you.

NCELA and ED seem to have various levels of similar information. That is not necessarily an problem, 

but more direct integration or cross-referencing may assist retrieval of needed info by grantees.

Actually, I dont have any concerns at the moment, the staff has always been understanding and helpful.

Link to it more as a resource. I don't think I have used it. I may have but not sure.

I had no issues with the department staff or the technical assistance staff. I had an issue with the OELA 

monitoring tool every year the entire span of the project. I never was able to make the budget figures 

match what my approved budget and revisions were.

Keep up to date.

How grant reporting process could be improved?

Data gathering from our school partners is extremely time consuming and challenging given that only 

certain students in x grade levels take the annual ELA and Reading tests/assessments we need to 

access. We also frequently have to wait until mid-late summer to receive the Spring results, which may 

arrive just as the school year is starting again. This makes our OELA reporting process feel rushed, 

frustrating & incomplete in May; however, I realize the timing is going to be different for each state in 

terms of data availability, but perhaps there is a way to group grantees' reporting timeframes according to 

the availability of the statewide testing data.

age old issue of requiring data in reporting before its ready. some data is not going to show the change 

we are working toward for years...

The format of the data reporting does not always align with the goals and objectives in the grant 

narrative. Additionally the grantees are not given sufficient time to comprehend the data requirements 

before they are required to report. Additional webinars on collecting, analyzing and the reporting format 

should be available prior to reporting deadlines.

This was an excellent grant to work with and the staff was extremely helpful.

The KMS reporting system is sometimes difficult to use, know how to enter the data. The ability to delete 

errors would be welcomed.

No improvements needed. Thank you.

ED.GOV and KMS are generally consistent. Further alignment may be useful.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 583

Right now, For me the time period for which we have to report needs to be exteded, due to COVID we 

have to many unknown here in our community.

Have webinars or video tutorials that show step by step how to do them.

The portal was never in sync to my program or reporting period.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

Having an archive of presentations would be wonderful, since they are often offered at times that conflict 

with our teaching team's instructional time. So as a director I participate and then share the info with staff, 

or ask a teacher to step away from teaching to participate, which can feel frustrating to them -- esp. if 

they then don't enjoy the workshop or presentation, or it's more technical than they would need to apply 

in a hands-on way in their classroom. A repository or archive that our grant team could access on our 

scheduled prof. devel. days, for example, would be hugely helpful!

N/A

All seems well.

None at this time

The Department staff needs more training to consistently interact with grantees. Over the course of a 

grant we have had 4-5 different project officers which creates a challenge with communications and 

compliance.

No improvements

Our program officer [REDACTED] has been so supportive and easy to work with. Sh goes out of her way 

to make sure that we are doing well during this stressful time of COVID. I truly appreciate all of her 

support, thank you!

More per to peer interaction.

Don't know ?

Everything is online so it is difficult to get the face to face or real support sometimes.

If I had a problem it was based on the knowledge of staff out of the OELA office in regards to the Native 

American Title III section of the statute.

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

Manhattan Strategy
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 584

NCELA provides excellent professional development opportunities and up to date information on trends 

and opportunities.

Youth for Youth

KMS and related entities

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

NAM - 2020 - Q1.11. What, if any, improvements have you seen in OELA over the last 

year?

Amazing conference last year -- was our first, so not sure if it was an improvement. But it was so 

well organized and in a convenient & accessible location -- really appreciated the menu & 

snacks as well for such a large group. The student band was also really great. We did notice 

that our hard working program officer had to help coordinate conference issues at the venue 

(like A/V or menu changes w/ site-based staff) while also preparing to sit on a panel to discuss 

her work for & w/ our grantees. So it seemed like she should have been provided with additional 

backup & admin support on-site -- though of course folks probably look to her b/c she is so 

incredibly competent and well-organized and thoughtful. But just a thought, that as our program 

officer she should have time to meet and socialize informally with grantees throughout the 

conference venue, rather than having to coordinate conference logistics when this is the only 

time we see her in person annually. She did a great job with everything, and still made time to 

come around to our tables during some small group discussions, but we wanted her to have 

more time to enjoy the event that she was obviously such a huge part of making happen in the 

first place. In any case, conferences are always stressful for the organizers, and it was an 

excellent event!

i didn't think it needed any improvements

I have seen improvement of more help with filling out reports. I am always busy so don't have 

time to read as much as I need too. The quick instructions they give us helps. We are not 

allowed to get on facebook and I do not have much signal at home so I do not get into the links.

Increased communications have occurred during this year.

OELA has always had a very humanistic approach. An excellent federal program.

Sincere support and care about grantees they are working with. Thank you!

Unsure

Native American Career and Technical Education Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

tabs renamed: I want to go directly to my grant award document without selecting each tab.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 585

Communication with the NACTEP staff has been timely and helpful, along with the webinars. There has 

not been a need to use the website.

I always have a hard time finding my name to get started in the G5. Always get kicked out and have to 

start over is a thing I didn't like.

There is so much information, it is hard to find exactly what you are looking for that pertains specifically to 

your grant. I think it would be helpful if NACTEP had its own section and all information that pertains to it 

could all be found under it specifically.

As someone new to grants and non-profits I would have benefited from an overview of the NACTEP 

program as a whole i.e. its purpose, etc. Also, perhaps some sample documents would help to show 

grantees the required reports. Videos and a networking medium could also help grantees to connect to 

share best practices and make their programs even more effective.

I believe it could be a bit more user friendly, although with continued use and experience it gets much 

easier to work through!

Clear items the federal register is not really easy to digest so perhaps breaking down by topics. 

Budgeting Reporting Allowable And additions in a single location etc.

Overall it is good. I had trouble finding information only because I didn't have the proper title of things I 

was searching for.

No specific suggestions

It's confusing when logging into the portal, it does not tell you how to navigate it. It would be great to have 

an isolated portal for each Grant. And the ability to learn about the NACTEP Grant alone.

I need to visit the website...

How grant reporting process could be improved?

Maybe using more templates -a report generator for gprs/data-better to use/navigate.

We are currently working on the grant report due the end of October 2020. It is time consuming, but we 

understand the necessity of being thorough and appreciate the opportunity it brings to our Native 

community. I can't think of an area requiring improvement. Thank you!

E-mail

The G5 System has errors when reporting, and makes it hard to put information in correctly without 

receiving an error signal. I think until those are fixed it is better we turn in via email to the Grant Officer 

as we are doing for Year 2.

Some videos and blogs on the department website that speak to the different areas of reporting would be 

very helpful.

The grant reporting process is just fine, but it takes a bit of use and experience to get it done correctly.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 586

It would be helpful on the front end to tell people how to write achieve able goals on the front end. And 

then go from there. I've noticed in my own grant there are goals that are actually 2 in 1. Which makes the 

reporting difficult at times. It would be useful for the department to tell the grantees the types of data At 

the beginning because we experience high turnover a lot of the time a standing guide would be helpful so 

that the project would be easier picked up by the next person. So.. really a skeleton of sorts that could be 

filled in by the individual programs about what is happening goals and the plans to get there.

Reporting documents & forms have been the same for many years. Possibly updating forms with fillable 

sections as needed.

No specific suggestions

Call the Grantees regularly and check-in to offer assistance.

I much appreciate [REDACTED] as the new grant officer. Gwen was extremely hard to work with and 

understand. She would not respond to emails either.

Perhaps make the due dates consistent and make it more clear on how reports should be submitted - i.e. 

via email or through G5 system. Make submission format consistent.

Provide sample templates that are acceptable. provide feedback on reporting style. I've submitted 8 to 10 

reports over the past 5 years and I have rarely received feedback about the report. I just assume that no 

news is good news.

The reporting structure is not always clear - while emails are sent with timelines, the required 

components of reports are not clear except for what is in G5.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

We've had outstanding service from Linda Mayo. She responded to all questions, in fact many times it 

was after hours in D.C. and late at night we would hear from her.

It may be helpful to have an individual meeting with the program officer every 6 months to discuss 

highlights and challenges the grantee is facing.

give examples

I think they are doing a good job. Sometimes I feel updates on GAN's are usually at the last minute 

leaving your project feeling unsure of the future with being awarded again. As it is usually the last minute 

before you find out if the grant will be continued another year, and even on the last year whether it will be 

posted in the federal registry or another year will be continued - making it difficult to plan ahead.

I've never used the technical assistance. I've always relied on our program's evaluator to answer 

questions I might have about reports or the program. I'd really like networking opportunities with other 

grantees.

More webinars more opportunity to get together with peers I learned of some positions to support my 

goals at the annual meeting where before I was trying to cover all the bases by myself. It was good to 

learn of different and new allowable costs from others also.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 587

Other than the one Director's meeting at the start of the grant, it would be nice to have a yearly update 

meeting with other Directors. I've reached out to one other grantee for peer to peer information & 

assistance, but we don't always have that contact information.

We attended an initial grantee meeting that included peer agencies, but not since that first year. Annual 

peer gatherings to share information and learnings would be very helpful.

Would appreciate quarterly meetings to learn from other grantees as well as Department staff

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

21st Century Community Learning Centers

What is your job role?

Director of Education for the Tribe

Project Director

Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

No suggestions...

There seems to be a lot of extraneous information and I feel overwhelmed when I am looking for 

something specific.

Ensure very clear buttons for topics; Update the information every 6 months - information regarding 

previous NASNTI grantees has not been updated for quite some time; create an easy way for NASNTI 

programs to connect with each other; FAQ's that are searchable.

Have updated information regarding up-to-date grantees.

N/A

I find it a bit intimidating to use. That may just be me. Logging is is ok but could be simpler. I do 

recogniize the need for security though.

It is my opinion that pertinent information regarding grants and opportunities to write for a grant, should 

be listed in one location. This webiste should: Provide updated information. Have all NASNTI Grants 

included on this website instead of being located somewhere else. Have the RFP's on this website.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 588

I believe the page speed can be optimized. Sometimes it is very slow. I would review the headlines. They 

can be more directive and better designed.

Make it more user friendly. It is difficult to navigate if you aren't familiar with the functions.

Make commonly needed information the biggest tabs or buttons, minutia put somewhere else.

How grant reporting process could be improved?

The instructions were very clear...

I feel that deadlines are not announced in a timely manner.

No need to improve. It is very user-friendly and easy to submit.

Let grantees know when the APR will be available on HEPIS.

N/A

I came in mid grant and did not personally submit these reports.

For the last two years, the reporting system was flawed. It either did not save my information, even when 

I clicked save, or the system partially saved the information, although I was within the limit for number 

(count). (characters

The major improvement needed is concerning timelines. When we finally received the information about 

the grant competition we had just three weeks to prepare and submit the proposal.

n/a

Knowing what PDs are looking for would be helpful, but the reporting overall is not burdensome

Provide a mechanism for highlighting best practices which can be shared across grantees

The walk through of changes is fine, I feel it's the platform used for the webinar that feels dated and is 

hard to hear at times.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

The technical assistance received was very helpful and very timely.

I feel that this year was so different than others due to the pandemic. Utilizing virtual avenues would be a 

great way to help stay connected.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 589

No changes needed. The Department staff are very helpful when the need arises.

I suggest hiring more staff and set a program load for each staff member to provide technical assistance 

to their grantees.

N/A

NA

Before the reporting document is sent out, I would have it tested by implementing old data.

Due to COVID-19 we had no training (webinars, Director meetings, conference workshops) offered.

Increased communication

What is your job role?

Project Director

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

NASNTI - 2020 - Q21.2. How can NASNTI improve the usefulness of the technical 

assistance you receive?

Develop a robust set of FAQ's with thorough answers clearly searchable on the website to find 

many of the answers. Now the NASNTI has been in existence for a number of years, many of 

the questions grantees have are similar. This may reduce the need for reaching out for technical 

assistance.

Set up quarterly one-on-one phone calls with grantees.

N/A

NA

Promoting more interactions with other schools/directors

Clear guidance for solutions in programmatic concerns

NASNTI - 2020 - Q21.5. What can the NASNTI do to improve communication with you?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 590

Perhaps a monthly newsletter with information that impacts NASNTI programs.

Create a text messaging capability for important notifications. Schedule regular and routine 

'check-ins' so grantees can plan for them and prepare questions during their anticipated and 

allocated time with program specialists.

Establish a one-on-one quarterly meeting with grantees.

N/A

NA

Offer more helpful webinars.

I have excellent communication with D.E. Most of our concerns are related to timelines.

Increase communication. Perhaps quarterly?

NASNTI - 2020 - Q21.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process and 

protocols associated with this grant competition?

I don't have advice on how to improve the competition.

I like the process and protocols.

I would ask that more than 30 days be provided between the Notice in the Federal Register and 

the Due Date of the proposal. 60 days would allow for more opportunity in submitting 

Collaboration Grants.

Improvement could be made by holding annual grantee meetings.

N/A

NA

Provide ample time to write the grant.

Providing enough time after announcing the competition.

Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 591

Continue with current updates, which saves so much time in researching for our six (6) projects' 

Consortium benefit. Links are extremely helpful. Mahalo (Thanks).

How grant reporting process could be improved?

Difficult, at times due to Pandemic. However, immediate access to grant reporting questions has been 

excellent and always understandable for changes.

Provide instructions for upcoming grant reports earlier.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

Continue to provide relevant updates, and access to areas such as G5 System.

Facilitate more peer-to-peer learning among grantees

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

regional lab updates

What is your job role?

Director, CTE Consortium-non-profit agency

Native Hawaiian Education Act Program/Education of Native Hawaiian

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Make it look inviting.

When loading grant reports, the portal sometimes shuts down and information is not saved. That can be 

frustrating.

Market it so we know it's available.

The website is complicated and specific information is often difficult to access.

The look an feel of the website needs to be updated.

N/A - Have not used
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 592

My experience is that many federal websites are not up to date. If other potential consumers hold that 

belief, many will not even attempt to use the site. I understand the need to be screen-reader compliant, 

but long lists of texts are not great for typical consumers to use. Is that the secretary in the home page 

photo spool? If so, well that is a little odd.

the OESE.ed.gov website has so much information, it can be hard to navigate or find what you are 

specifically looking for.

A comment; the website has a tremendous amount of information to cipher through. But my experience 

has been good with updated information, clear headings etc.

Itʻs good for now.

Logging in is sometimes problematic. I have to try multiple times before I am able to get in.

How grant reporting process could be improved?

Consistency in due dates (i.e. due dates listed in emails do not match the due dates on forms)

Give us the ability to upload more than 1 document in section C.

The annual reporting process is extremely confusing and does not allow us to report on all 

deliverables/outcomes a required in our contract except through narrative. We do not have a data 

sharing agreement with DOE, only our third party evaluators do. Therefore, the data is not accessible or 

helpful to us directly.

The process of reporting could be improved by making it less complicated and by improving the online 

accessibility. Often times we must submit multiple times and data is often lost.

The current form used for grant reporting is not very user friendly and does not allow for the completed 

report to be downloaded as one document. The tables also do not print in format that is easy to read.

We canʻt think of any areas to improve. Semi-annual reports are greatly appreciated (vs a higher 

frequency) Ditto with not being bound to a rigid template and instead being able to present and report 

against committed activities and deliverables in a way that is clear and efficient to us

Improving the 'G5' online interface would be a wonderful benefit to all grantees in terms of saved time, 

resources and stress.

It's a tough task I know! Just seems clunky and overly work-intensive. I'm used to it already but since 

you asked: 1. The reporting text boxes don't tolerate Hawaiian diacritical markings and generate nonsensical punctuation marks. Since reporting does entail the need to use Hawaiian words it would be nice 

to be empowered to use 'okina and kahakō. 2. The system is slow to refresh and it feels old fashioned 

and not user friendly. 3. But well it works well enough I suppose...but the diacritical markings would be 

nice.

Feedback once the report has been submitted, besides the auto response that it was submitted and 

received.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 593

Making sure that access is easy and unencumbered by frequent glitches. Making sure that reports are 

able to be submitted with minimal website or administrative issues.

The G5 is a very cumbersome website. Not user friendly at all.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

They were good when it came to answering quick questions.

have virtual meetings with other grantees and Project staff.

Clarify that Department staff can provide resources, training, etc., as listed in this survey. Right now 

Department staff are very responsive and supportive but they mostly serve as a 'check-in' on progress.

Access to training and support

More technical assistance workshops and coordinating meeting with NHEP programs to share best 

practices would be helpful.

More opportunities for peer to peer sharing

If this refers to assistance w/ G5, we often have tech issues, and usually those assisting are helpful. 

There was an occasion where the person responded but didnt answer the question, then did not reply to 

our followup. If this refers to [REDACTED] - sheʻs awesome! She is as responsive as one might expect 

given her heavy workload, and always very understanding, supportive and helpful.

Didn't know the previous technical assistance could be provided by the department, so answered don't 

know to all 4 questions. If these types of assistance are available, it either isn't common knowledge or 

isn't available.

Ifind the Department staff to be very helpful and professional and caring

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

Native Hawaiian Education Council

What is your job role?

PI

Program Director

CUSTOM QUESTIONS
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 594

NHE - 2020 - Q59.4. What technical assistant topics can the NHE program provide to 

support the implementation of your grant projects more effectively?

?

COVID19 updates and clarifications. Changes of delivery model suggestions and confirmation 

for continuing programs.

More timely responses from 'higher ups' when DOE grant officer needs clarification on 

questions. More timely response from DOE on required submissions to G5: annual reports, 

semi-annual reports, budget modifications, other required reporting.

Reporting and extension request

Support when anew RFP becomes available.

We have not needed technical assistance.

Weʻd love ideas on how to address the ongoing challenge of federal grants starting on 10/1, 

which is mid semester for all the partner schools we serve. Ideally weʻd fund their classes from 

August thru May, plus summer programs. Its been very difficult to not be able to commit at the 

start of Fall semester, then schools cant accommodate in the middle of Fall Semester when we 

receive award notice. Many are also not even able to accommodate in Spring semester due to 

many of their classes being year-long.

Neglected and Delinquent State and Local Agency Programs

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

It would be helpful if the various federal programs were listed on the U.S. Department of Educations 

home page so you didn't have several clicks to get to the Title I, Part D information.

Replace broken links.

No recommendations at this time.

The new design is fresh and easy to follow. It is easy to share with subgrantees. I look forward to having 

it link to the NDTAC website once the new TA Center is on board.

N/A

Provide more updated regulatory guidance on the website. In addition, virtual tutorial on hot topics.

The previous NDTAC website was more useful than the Departments website.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 595

Personally it is an easy to navigate website already.

Having the resources easy to find and not where the audience has to dig or search for guidance or 

reference materials. Often when we need to find something on the website it is because we are looking 

for official materials to make a reference or determination and having clear and concise information 

directing where materials are located would be helpful.

I usually used the NDTAC website as it was easier to navigate but that is now gone.

it is clean, easy to find, lots of white space, not crowded or nauseating,...

specific topics sections are the best

For neglected and delinquent programming I always go to the NDTAC website, I wasn't aware that ED 

had a version.

How grant reporting process could be improved?

There is just a great deal of data gathered.

Provide additional guidance as it relates to facility eligibility. I realize there are some state specific 

issues; however, I have experienced issues with determining eligibility for psychiatric residential facilities. 

Their argument has been that other states funds them which may be a broader issue.

In my role I need to collect the data from various facilities and school districts. I then need to pass that 

information along to my CSPR state representative who uploads the data for USED. I wish there was a 

way for ED to either collect the data directly from the programs or a way for me to upload the data 

directly.

The TA session provided during this year's conference by [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] was very 

helpful. Additional sessions are welcome, along with updated FAQs.

Standardize and correlate the data collection form with the Excel format

Provide more workshops on the data collection and reporting for the upcoming reporting period.

I don't have any suggestions.

Currently, reporting process is already customer oriented which helps when turning it in.

Letting us know how USDE uses the data (specifically CSPR). Clarifying the annual count process in how 

USDHHS does the foster count and how that should align with the way we collect the annual count for 

Neglected facilities (clarifying Neglected facilities as well).

It's a much better process than it used to be -

n/a
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 596

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

It would be great if the Department could offer consortium grants (like Title I, Part C) so states would 

have a little extra money to work together on common issues we encounter. It would also be nice to 

have informal networking opportunities for directors.

I want to only say thank you to the Title I, Part D team at ED. They are awesome in my book! Their 

support has been consistent and strong.

No suggestions at this time.

Updated FAQs

N/A

Create down able tool kits available on the website for states to use.

I hope that I understood these questions. I've received the most technical assistance from NDTAC and 

not the ED Staff. I've only asked one question of the current ED staff and that question got answered, 

but I'm not confident that I have witness their knowledge of the program. That is why I chose not 

applicable or don't know. The previous staff from ED provided inconsistent technical assistance. Some 

questions got answered and some did not or took an extremely long time to get an answer.

The connection and assistance from both the Department and NDTAC has been super helpful. Hopefully 

the contract for NDTAC services will resume soon.

The current technical assistance provided is a good method of sharing best practices and resources.

Candidly, most TA came to the state staff from the NDTAC. They did such a good job that contacting the 

federal staff was almost not needed except to address statutory and reporting issues.

Providing webinars

Update some of the informational manuals.

The non-regulatory guidance in this area has not been updated in years. Multiple requests for updated 

guidance have been made.

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

AIR- [REDACTED]

N or D Ed TA Center

NDTAC
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 597

NDTAC

NDTAC

NDTAC

NDTAC

NDTAC

NDTAC

NDTAC

NDTAC

NDTAC and they are AMAZING!!!! I would be lost without the support from AIR and NDTAC!

NDTAC/AIR

Neglected or Delinquent Education Technical Assistance Center

Neglected or Delinquent Education Technical Assistance Center

Neglected or Delinquent Education Technical Assistance Center

Neglected or Delinquent Education Technical Assistance Center

Neglected or Delinquent Education Technical Assistance Center

Neglected or Delinquent Education Technical Assistance Center

Neglected or Delinquent Education Technical Assistance Center (NDTAC in AIR)

Regulation guidance. They were extremely responsive.

support TA from AIR

[REDACTED]

Payments for Federal Property (Section 7002)

CORE QUESTIONS
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 598

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

N/A

No improvement needed. We have been very impressed with the site and available assistance.

I could not and still cannot confirm that my form was filed. I submitted several times but never got 

confirmation that the form was properly filed. We had a question about an error we were getting and 

received prompt and courteous reply to our email. When we fixed the problem, we still weren't sure we 

had filed the form. When we recontacted the person, he said everything looked fine but we are unable 

to see a copy of the form like in prior years. There needs to be a page that says you have completed 

everything and here is your confirmation number and a link to your completed form. If you are not 

providing a form, that needs to be clear. It was also cumbersome to pass back and forth between my 

superintendent and me. If I sent it to him for review, I could no longer see it. We should both be able to 

view the forms no matter what stage in the process we are in.

Don't know enough about technology to make a suggestion.

I am very please with the website.

I have no suggestions at this time

I wasn't aware of the website and am not sure how to use it and what information/help it can provide me.

I don't feel that any changes are necessarily warranted. Maybe autofill would be a suggestion as most 

Federal Properties don't change from year to year in most school districts I would assume.

N/A

N/A

no comment

I have no suggestions for website improvement.

No comment

No suggestions.

We had trouble at first finding information. I hit a submit button by mistake and it took awhile for us to be 

able to get back to our application. Not sure if that is the case still

No input.

No suggestions at this time.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 599

Since many of us only use the site 1-2 times/year, a simple note/guidance sheet refreshing our memories 

of where things are located would be helpful. The new site is much better than previous versions, 

especially for those of us who used to use the paper/fax versions.

Last year was my first attempt to complete this application. Not knowing how to proceed, I looked for 

help on the website for how to proceed. The website provided technical assistance link. After trying to 

explain my issue, I finally called support for guidance to answer my questions about not being able to 

proceed. Response time was very slow and the initial person I talked with could not help me. I finally 

received help complete the application. It was a good thing I started the process early or I may have 

missed the completion deadline.

A menu on the home page, which explains the resources more completely, would be helpful.

I just started to do this process, and I do not have experience to draw from for this survey.

If a rep is unavailable there should be a voice mail option findicating when to expect a call back.

Having a search tool that actually works productively.

I have not used it

none come to mind at this time

Nothing as of now.

We don't have any experience with it - from what we know about the other department of education 

services we believe we would support it positively

The website is fine.

The website is great. Would like to be able to actually access the payment voucher, not just the amount 

paid.

I'm only 3 months into my new treasurer position and haven't had much experience with the website or 

Federal Grants so I can't really say what can be improved with such little experience.

N/A

I have not been in it this year. Last year I remember having problems, but maybe because it was new.

Connecting pay requests to the grant award (especially the correct number & year) is sometimes very 

difficult.

Continue to work out the 'glitches'.

Easy to navigate and informative
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 600

I have a hard time finding where to go when I have to make a change or amendment. I have since 

learned but it typically takes me multiple tries to remember where to find the active application. All 

interactions with personnel have been fantastic and very helpful.

I think it is as good as it can be.

In general, I think the website is well-designed.

make things easier

Tech support seems cumbersome, when i need a quick response.

Up to date software would be nice but I understand why it is not and the money that it saves us all

We always seem to find what we need

What is your job role?

Assistant to the BA

Impact Aid Consultant

Impact Aid Consultant

Impact Aid Consultant

Impact Aid Consultant

Impact Aid Consultant

Impact Aid Consultant

Asst.

Account Tech

CFO

Federal Program Director

Finance Director

Fiscal
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 601

FP Secretary

Impact Aid Consultant

Impact Aid Consultant

Impact Aid Consultant

Impact Aid Consultant

impact aid coordinator

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

PFP - 2020 - Q54.9. Please explain.

The presentations and materials are always helpful.

clarified and assisted the process of applying.

The guides and graphics were quick reference when I was filling out the form.

The instructions were very precise. Informations had clarity.

It provided some clarification

Walked you through the website.

I have attended sections of 7002 at both the fall and spring NAFIS Conference.

n/a

OASIS hosted an event in OKC. The explanation provided there as regards the new website 

and submission protocol was very helpful.

Clear concise instructions were reviewed to aid in the completion of our application.

I attend training every year for Impact Aid. The data they presented and the materials on the 

website are very helpful when submitting data.

I had a good understanding of the submission process.

provided needed instructions

we received what we need to submit information
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 602

Very clear explanations... I did not ask questions.

Yes, they have assisted in completing the application.

It helped to refresh my memory and to point out some items in the process, when seeing 

someone 'walk you through' is easier than finding your own path.

Printed materials very helpful

Presenters, although reading directly from slides, guided participants through each required 

table and the supporting documentation required for each data set.

ability to ask in person specific questions was very helpful

Opportunity to receive updates/clarification

So, when I first applied it was very complex and confusing. Over time I began to understand but 

have had difficulties in getting adequate information from taxing bodies. (local problem)

Cleared up questions.

I did the webinar and found it to be helpful

It clarified several questions. Due to our remote setting, lack of other schools applying to 

collaborate with, and distance to trainings the webinars and materials provided when able to 

attend have helped explain to administrators and REMEMBER technicalities.

Somewhat.

The directions were very explicit and easy to follow.

The presentations are presented in a manner where all individuals have opportunities to ask 

questions.

The training that was held last year in NC was GREAT! They were really knowledgeable and 

offered lots of guidance.

PFP - 2020 - Q54.10. What additional communications would you like to receive regarding 

the status of your application, prior to receiving a payment?

A month ahead of time heads-up

n/a
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 603

Confirmation that application is complete and has been filed. Website should give you 

confirmation number and you should receive email that the application process is complete. We 

still are not sure that we filed properly for the 2021 application. Clearer communication on 

whether the filing was complete is needed.

Just let us know everything is okay.

good

None

none

I'm not sure - I still struggle with understanding the information I need to collect, and how to 

report it.

The information I receive is sufficient.

n/a

Perhaps an email directly to me notifying that a payment is imminent would assist our treasurer.

None

Notifying us via email before payments are made is very helpful.

No additional communication at this time.

None at this time

No suggestions.

none

So with Covid and people working from home we had difficulty getting information in a timely 

manner. We actually had to contact people we have previously worked with to get information. 

Once we got through this hurdle the application process has gone smother.

No input.

Timely verification that application has been received.

Perhaps status updates, and even though any follow up information requests may be routine for 

Ed. Staff, for those of us rarely in the system, we may not have clarity on how to proceed.

Completing the application for my district was actually pretty easy if I would have been advised 

to complete the 'Opt Out' form. After finally receiving the advice, the representative sent a copy 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 604

of the 'opt out' form to complete and upload. Completing the application was easy after 

FINALLY receiving the information required.

We will not be receiving a payment.

Unsure

Detail description on bank ACH notice

Status updates periodically.

A Schedule would be great as a separate E-mail

confirmation that the application is complete and no questions prior to the deadline to amend

current level of communication is adequate

fine as is

I would like to have the payment notice emailed to me before the money is distributed. I always 

have to email and ask for the documentation -

No additional communications needed at this time.

No additional communications needed.

No additional communications needed. Everyone is great.

No additional communications needed. Everyone is very helpful.

No additional communications needed. Everyone is very helpful.

No additional communications needed. My questions have always been answered.

None, people are very helpful.

PFP - 2020 - Q54.11. Please provide any additional specific suggestions for how the 

Impact Aid Program can improve customer service.

Answer the phone when I call even after 5:00 PM

Customer service for Impact Aid is phenomenal.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 605

Customer service was prompt and courteous. We had no problems with our response time.

Don't have anything specific.

good

I feel they are so helpful and positive. I truly appreciate there time, and calm assistance when I 

have needed them. At times I have applied close to the deadline and they are always, 

ALWAYS, so helpful and kind, and CALM when walking me through until I was done.

I am happy with the service.

I have none

I search for simple directions to help me with the total process. Some of the terms used confuse 

me and make it harder to understand and figure out.

I would say that I find that the State and Federal governments are behind on their technology 

and programming compared to the private sector.

If it would be possible to review information from previous years and if there are no changes just 

submit application or roll application from year to year would be benficial.

Making it easier to move land onto the roles that meets the criteria but is not considered for 

payment.

N/A

No comment

No comment.

No other specific suggestions.

No questions at this time

No suggestions.

none

None at this time

None at this time.

Nothing at this time.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 606

Often it seems difficult to be able to talk with a person, inherently everyone is busy, but getting 

to talk with our person on the phone vs. email is much more personable. Not time efficient, but 

helps build working relationships.

Provide more training for us 'novice' applicants.

The requirements for the grant were not completely clear to me prior to the start of the 

application process. I spent a lot of time gathering and entering information, only to find that we 

would not qualify. If I had better guidance in the beginning, I would not have gone through all of 

the trouble to gather the information and apply.

Unsure

Use PDFs

When needed, one designated staff member who can assist with clarifying questions

While this may be challenging but reach out to district contacts periodically to see how they are 

progressing with the application. Maybe insert 'alerts' into the data submission tables that notify 

districts of potential issues based upon prior application submissions.

Payments for Federally Connected Children (Section 7003)

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Provide tech support to assist with issues with filing. Last year my data entered was not saved with no 

warning. I did not feel there were clear directions on how to upload data. This resulted in our application 

being rejected multiple times - trying to upload in the system was very challenging and I ended up 

needing ed.gov to assist.

I wish I had a better way of describing it. It is a great web site, useful, but something makes it hard to 

work through. It is like it is not viewed from the LEA perspective. A great deal of information is there, but 

the stuff an LEA would want is often more challenging to find in the data presented.

The website is a big upgrade from using G5, and it's made contacting our Impact Aid person a lot easier 

and quicker.

The District is satisfied with the improvements that have been made.

Do not particularly use the website. Only use the Impact Aid site to apply for the grants.

When looking for reports, I enter our numbers and the system will not recognize. Also, I continuously 

have to use the forgotten password option, the system won't recognize my password. It would help it the 

info I enter would come up with out having to call the help desk

As with every web site, you need to understand what you are looking for. For me as a user, it works well 

for everything I need.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 607

Only include the information that pertains to our school rather than the information of other schools along 

with it.

Make it easier to search for properties.

Overall I am happy with the updated site. When I first logged in I was not sure how to find my 7003 file 

but I figured it out quickly. I have no issues now

The SEARCH engine could be better with regards to accessing more areas of the searched topic.

User friendly and post items in advance about upcoming year requirements.

Send a well explained chart with simple directions on how to find application from previous years. 

Auditors ask for copies of applications and it is hard to download previous year's applications at a 

minute's notice. Thank you.

Website is functional, accurate and up to date. User friendly or fool proof for technology immigrants 

would be beneficial.

I did not find instructions to be particularly useful. It was stressful to me to figure out how and where to 

accomplish what I needed.

With a consulting business we work with several school districts and not all of them show on our IAGS 

page. All of our schools were on the page when I submitted in January. Now they're not. I sometimes 

have to call and inquire but it is usually resolved in a timely manner.

Be more descriptive on inforamtion that should be entered into each section of the actual Application 

where we submit data. The application completion used to be very straightforward and now it is not.

When I first became acquainted with the system, it was difficult to navigate. Once I created the account 

and logged in, I needed to call into customer service to actually find how to get to the grant application 

information. Once I had the initial support I was able to move through the system proficiently.

Website needs to be more friendly. Still takes time to find what I need.

It seems like topics could be better organized.

I like the program change from the old website to the new one.

In general, the website is efficient fairly easy to navigate. Not sure if on the redesigned website (I 

remember thinking this in the past) lets me know right away if uploaded documents have been received 

and are correct

With a consulting business we work with several school districts and not all of them show on our IAGS 

page. Last year when I was submitting they were all there in alphabetical order. Now I have to type the 

school I want to look at. I sometimes have to call and inquire but it is usually resolved in a timely manner.

With a consulting business we work with several school districts and not all of them show on our IAGS 

page. I sometimes have to call and inquire but it is usually resolved in a timely manner.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 608

With a consulting business we work with several school districts and not all of them show on our IAGS 

page. I sometimes have to call and inquire but it is usually resolved in a timely manner.

No comment

Make it easier to navigate

Increase the offerings of professional development including updates.

Allow passwords to be repeated or kept longer

Simple directions. Easy o follow guides for completing documents.

The staff directory does not tell you who to contact for your state or what the person's specialty is.

The website is better than it used to be.

By improving the Home page once you are on the site, it's a little confusing. Make it more user friendly.

unknown

With a consulting business we work with several school districts and not all of them show on our IAGS 

page. I sometimes have to call and inquire but it is usually resolved in a timely manner.

With a consulting business we work with several school districts and not all of them show on our IAGS 

page. I sometimes have to call and inquire but it is usually resolved in a timely manner.

Try to make it easier to operate

With a consulting business we work with several school districts and not all of them show on our IAGS 

page. I sometimes have to call and inquire but it is usually resolved in a timely manner.

I think the awkwardness has to do with the learning process. The site is so different from what I used for 

years prior. Change is not easily acquired.

Whenever we need to use the website we don't have too many issues. If we do, we call and get great 

help.

I find it cumbersome and awkward. I usually must click around the site until I stumble on what I need, 

doesn't seem to be logically displayed - at least in my opinion. I'm not alone as I've watched others in 

my organization stumble around the site trying to locate what was needed.

There is a lot of white space while navigating through the steps

The website was easy to use, but it would be nice to have some detail or description as to what the fields 

require.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 609

The new website is a vast improvement over the last. It was nearly impossible to find up to date 

information previously. I have no specific recommendations to improve further.

When there are changes the LEA needs to know about, make them more obvious on the website and the 

emails. With being flooded by daily emails in general, it's hard to sift out the important ones.

n/a

Works well, no issues.

I am not the person that applies for grants at our District. I am the one that processes the claims.

The website is easy to manipulate. I do not have any suggestions.

With a consulting business we work with several school districts and not all of them show on our IAGS 

page. I sometimes have to call and inquire but it is usually resolved in a timely manner.

With a consulting business we work with several school districts and not all of them show on our IAGS 

page. I sometimes have to call and inquire but it is usually resolved in a timely manner.

With a consulting business we work with several school districts and not all of them show on our IAGS 

page. They all showed up when I was submitting in January but now they don't. I have to type the name 

of the school and sometimes it shows and sometimes it doesn't. I sometimes have to call and inquire but 

it is usually resolved in a timely manner.

to navigate through the system with more ease , instruction were not very clear when we were uploading 

for the audit

Definitely clearer instructions regarding the 'tasks'.

I am not sure if this comment is the appropriate for this survey but the new Impact.ed.gov site has several 

issues that need to be addressed. Examples include identifying the application's status, printing an 

efficient application, property list with properties deemed no long applicable.

N/A

What is your job role?

District ADM Clerk

new admin

SR Accountant

Accounting Specialist

Grants Accountant
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 610

Director

Director of Federal Programs

Impact Aid Consultant

Sr Staff Accountant

Impact Aid Consultant

Impact Aid Consultant

Impact Aid Consultant

SEA support staff

Director, FIA

clerical

Impact Aid Consultant

Impact Aid Consultant

Impact Aid Consultant

Impact Aid Administrator

Accounting Technician

Budget & Financial Systems Analyst

Tribal Liaison

Accounting Manager

Administrative Assistant

Budget Administrator

Director of Finance

District Level Director/Administrator
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 611

Impact Aid Consultant

Impact Aid Consultant

Impact Aid Consultant

Impact Aid Consultant

Impact Aid Specialist

Sr.Bookkeeper

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

FCC - 2020 - Q35.8a. Please explain.

Very detailed powerpoint presentation. Thank you.

I was able to ask questions regarding the process that are acceptable for generating student 

information to submit with the application. Currently, the only thing I have trouble with obtaining 

is certification from our tribe and who exactly I need to contact for that certification.

Information is insightful in explaining the website and application process.

By giving examples and having participants walk through the application.

The presentations and materials were well thought out and very easy to understand.

Attended TAFIS meeting and overview of the new application was presented.

It help explain why data was collected and how it affected my district.

It helped with the new steps for the new system.

They gave a clear overview and provided reference materials to enable me to use the new 

system.

Yes, it is helpful because the webinars are available for review at any time.

I attend all trainings to help me with the cmpletion of the applications. The last presentation I 

attended was with a couple of presentors who had a booklet to follow along with their PP. It was 

on calculating your own Impact Aid funds using a method for student enrollment and a formula. 

It was very helpful and I have used the information with my work.

I had to call a couple times on some supporting documents and it was resolved in a timely 

fashion.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 612

I do understand my responsibilities. I did get some technical assistance but it was hard to find 

that. My main issue is that it is very important to me to do everything right and I am stressed to 

get this done. The new process and the instructions that didn't seem to work well for me when 

under stress, added to my stress. I eventually found how I could get some help but it is not (or 

wasn't to me) intuitive.

The presentations are good, I was able for the most part complete by the deadline.

The information provided was clear.

No comment

The information was detailed and clear.

The person responsible for training did a fantastic job.

webinars were informational concerning the new site. There were a few glitches when using 

the site, but hopefully that will be fixed for upcoming year.

While the webinars have helped with 'overview,' the direct conversation(s) with USDOE Support 

Staff has solidified needed information.

Yes, they are very easy to understand and are always available for assistance.

Verified information that was required on each table, prevented duplicate information from being 

supplied.

They provided information on their topic

Information was given on navigating the site and the how to's of the process of submitting the 

application

Webinars have been helpful to me, but it seems the timing of webinar offerings could be better. 

It would be helpful to have a recorded webinar that users can access at the point in their grant 

preparations that they need it and not depend on being available at the scheduled webinar 

time/date.

Having both verbal and written documentation worked great for me on completing the 

application.

Unfortunately, the material I was provided was form another District with a similar name so it 

was hard to compare/tie together with my submission. And by the time the next year rolls 

around you forget what you learned.

Clear information provided.

Cleared up that it's all about where the students lives, or where the parent works.

Gave good explinations
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 613

The new system roll out was shared in several webinars that were helpful in learning the new 

navigation channels.

Very clear directives on how to administer the survey to ensure accurate data on students that 

are federally connected.

FCC - 2020 - Q35.11. Please explain.

I have never received any training in regards to the Impact Aid Application- just had to figure it 

out. When asking for assistance the staff is great- but it is hard when you do not know quite the 

answer to ask. The reliance on having parents fill out the form for funding is challenging as wellespecially since the base or base housing does not provide assistance in having their families fill 

out the surveys.

The review was due before the amended application deadline. It was not clear how to proceed.

FCC - 2020 - Q35.13. Please explain.

N/A

Have not seen the review, I don't think they have visited the school or called.

not applicable

I had to reach out multiple time over months to find out status.

We did not have a review.

N/A Did not have a review

We have not had a review.

We have not been contacted for a review

The review is still pending; I have not heard from the office since September 21, 2020.

N/A

We were not reviewed this year. I have been reviewed several times in the past though. 

Communications were a little difficult, it was difficult to get ahold of people however last year 

was amazing!!

I have not been contacted
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 614

We have not had a review.

NA

Have not had a review, nor been contacted for one.

Not really

At this time have not received the information--YET that does not indicate it is not timely just 

haven't received it.

I answered 'No' to the previous question, therefore this question doesn't apply, but there is no 

'N/A' option, so I selected 'No' instead.

It has been a few years since we had an on site review.

NA

No review

We did not do a review

We did not have a review this year.

We did not receive a review in the past year.

We ended up not having the review due to COVID closure.

Yes when we have a review.

FCC - 2020 - Q35.16. Please provide any additional specific suggestions for how the 

Impact Aid Program can improve customer service.

Contact person constantly changes. When assisting me with my application and adding 

students in federal housing, my district received no additional assistance. When I inquired 

several times through voicemail and email as to why the additional students submitted as living 

in federal housing did not increase our Impact Aid assistance, no one ever responded back. We 

received no information as to why our additional students weren't considered. It's like it was just 

completely ignored. It was a tremendous amount of work to go through this process and it was 

just swept under the rug with no communication back to the district at all.

The new application system for 2021 was very challenging. The previous system seemed to 

work much better for our needs.

You really have good people in customer service, always found an answer for me.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 615

Customer service has been very helpful.

Just need to get a better grip on how to get the families to fill out the surveys.

When I call they are helpful, no concerns.

I am new here in this position and I am not very knowledgeable about the program or payments. 

We did have one lady contact us regarding our count and make sure that we did not miss out on 

funding. This was very helpful, thank you.

I can't think of anything,

I participated in the IAP in 2012 through 2015 and then came back to it this past year. I was 

amazed at how much easier it is now to process everything. But I was even more impressed 

and amazed at how customer service oriented it was compared to the past. Whatever you have 

done in the interim to bring about these great changes I wholeheartedly applaud! Keep up the 

great work! You are changing the perception of government agencies, which traditionally have 

been mocked and scorned!

I've always received a prompt response.

Customer service calls should be returned promptly. We are having to leave excessive voice 

and emails.

I am satisfied with the staff.

I would have the analysts put out templates of documents directly to the schools.

I know I started the process plenty early last year in order to get my application uploaded. Since 

I found the site to be stressful to me, I will start much earlier and hope to feel better with my 

abilities in using this new process.

My contact person was very helpful.

Thank you for all you do to help Districts

My experience was positive.

Responding to emails in a timely manner consistently.

None

No Comment

N/A

n/a
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 616

By giving them a raise for all the hard work and overtime they are putting in to assist districts 

around the nation.

The only thing I would suggest is answering in a timely manner. Thank you.

I only have praise for my USDOE Contacts. [REDACTED], [REDACTED] (retired) and 

[REDACTED] have each been extraordinarily helpful at any juncture. The IRS would be 

sagacious to follow their lead. Seriously. Big O's to each of them (from 6' away). :-)

I think they are doing a great job already. Impact aid has a really good team.

Being more prompt in providing a response.

Try and make the process simpler

The only thing that interfered with the timeliness of Impact Aid personnel in communicating with 

me about the outcome of the review is COVID... it took months for me to get a reply.

By changing their approach/attitude, by understanding that we are not the enemy. At times it 

feels as if the goal is to make the process convoluted to ensure school systems get the fewest 

number of grant dollars.

I have only been the administrator of the program for one year but so far Impact Aid team has 

been a tremendous help.

[REDACTED] does a tremendous job and is very helpful.

[REDACTED] is fabulous.

Originally when I contacted support, I was given an incorrect answer. I asked the question again 

and got a completely different answer which prompted an amendment. My question stemmed 

from the new system and the categories, as they were different from the previous system. Our 

demographics have not changed, so it was difficult to find some existing categories in the new 

system.

Our contact for the program is wonderful.

Overall, the customer service has been great with the response time and quality of the 

response.

Provide us with a direct contact person. It took several emails to the generic email I was 

provided in order to find someone who knew what the Impact Aid program was. And several 

districts I know get different answers to the same question.

Your staff is always helpful and top notch. I wish I had more time to devote to this program.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 617

FCC - 2020 - Q35.17. What additional communications would you like to receive regarding 

the status of your application, prior to receiving a payment?

A little timeline perhaps of when we should receive it or a roadmap for the year would be nice 

specific to our school.

Accurate and correct estimation of payments. Through my conversations over the last few 

years with your office, all I've learned is that we will never know how much we will receive and 

when. That makes managing district funds very challenging!

An email notification with amounts to be paid.

Approval receipt, update on amount of award to come, estimate on delivery of first payment, 

etc...

Basically, I would just like to know if everything is complete the way it should be and if the 

application was accepted, or if there's further information that I need to provide.

Communication to the County who helps oversee our funds.

descriptions in the payment to our bank so our County Treasurer knows what the money is.

Don't know specifically. Just keep trying to get better at gathering the information and applying 

so we don't keep losing money.

Email correspondence is suffiecient.

Emails at [REDACTED] and [REDACTED]

I cannot think of any.

I have not checked in the last week or so if there is a communication about the payment for this 

year so I'm not able to answer this question.

I would like to know what is the estimated amount of the full reimbursement.

I would like to know where we stand in the review process/payment maybe a why to look at it 

online

I'd still like to receive a copy of the payment voucher.

Information about whether the application was processed and any information that would tell us 

the outcome of the application. I did receive an email last week about a question about our 

application that led me to discover that I had reported a total like we did previously in G5, but 

that now should be reported differently. The staff member made the change on our application 

to show the correct number. This was exceeding helpful and gave me much confidence in the 

staff.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 618

informing us with the status and the breakdown of payments, and the frequency they will be 

delivered

It works fine just the way it has been done.

It would be nice to put a projected LOT to know where we might land with final payments.

Just more information for status

My go to people are [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] and they are GREAT!!

My questions have all been addressed very promptly and professionally.

N/A

N/A

NA

NA

Never quite sure when and how much will be received

No additional communications needed at this time.

No additional communications needed. Every time I reach [REDACTED] or [REDACTED] my 

questions are fully answered.

No additional communications needed. You have a great staff.

No comment

No comments

None

none

None

none at this time

None at this time.

nothing
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 619

Nothing I can think of...The Voucher Training Webinar from a couple of years ago was very 

helpful. Maybe offer it annually on a Voluntary basis for layman and as a refresher for the 

'seasoned' Impact Aid workers. Also, if you are allowed, offer Volunteer Webinars on how ADA 

or Negotiated Rate, etc. can be modified. Last but not least, petition Congress for more revenue 

for Impact Aid. :-)

Possibly email communication without having to go into the application to see the status.

Possibly that the application is currently under review.

The communications have always been great.

The communications that I have with [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] have been great.

The emails are great

The only additional comment I would have is that every time I call [REDACTED] or 

[REDACTED] they are very helpful and always answer my questions.

When I received a reply on the results of the review, I was able to see the financial results as 

well. I did not know that would be available before. That those results existed would be nice to 

know.

Your emails are just fine. Thank you.
Final Report

2020 620

Department of Education Office of Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey 

Predominantly Black Institutions 

(PBI) 

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

It would be helpful to have a section regarding upcoming competitions - one which explains the 

difference between a competitive and formula grant and when the funding cycles occur.

Perhaps it would be helpful to be provided on the website a concise glossary of terms, overall and 

specific to certain grants.

Ihave had very minor issues trying to use the search features on the website; some improvement there 

would be helpful.

Include up to date funding information

While the website has an abundance of information, the website has a cluttered appearance making it 

difficult to hone in on the information one is seeking. Once click on a page relevant to your search, that 

page normally has links leading you to additional information. In short, the information is not easily 

accessible, which can encourage people to dismiss the search.

no improvements

Have more information

My Program Contact was exceptional; however, new staff would benefit greatly from state and USDE 

sponsored training. When I accepted this position, there were few offerings for national PBI conventions 

and training. Those third party entities were less than adequate, in my opinion. Thank you all for the 

tremendous support you have given us. Lives have truly been saved and changed in this region. I 

commend you all for your efforts.

How grant reporting process could be improved?

Other than an acknowledgement that the APR was received, the college does not get any other feedback 

from USDOE. This feedback would be very helpful to new Program Directors in Years 1 and 2 of the 

grant. However, I do want to add that program officers are available and helpful when contacted.

The new reporting system has proved to be very beneficial and more user-friendly and with that, there 

are no improvements to note at the moment, other than maintaining a sound and sustainable system 

such as the one used now.

I thnk it is fine as it is.i

Some questions were not direct and would be answered subjectively.

There should be more consistency on when the report will be submitted, because in the last 3-4 years, 

we have submitted the report in January, March, and June.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 621

no suggestions; current process is straight forward

Please go back to the original reporting format.

Use a SIF Agent to extract the data from existing software programs. Update the grant reporting system.

provide more APR training

FAQ guide to provide clarifying information on questions

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

I would like to see more training offered by the U.S. Department of Education, especially in the early 

years of a five-year grant. Fortunately, our college was able to use a third party consultant/evaluator to 

help us navigate the PBI program. It is especially helpful when Program Officers are allowed to 

participate in training offered by a third party consultant. That has been our only time to meet face-2-face 

with program officers.

There are no improvements to note, currently.

The TA has been excellent.

More workshop that include the ED program liaison. More meetings with the ED program liaison.

No suggestions

no suggestions

N/A

n/a

provide monthly trainings

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

PBI - 2020 - Q24.2. How can PREDOMINANTLY BLACK INSTITUTIONS improve the 

usefulness of the technical assistance you receive?

I realize that there are many training videos and other resources available, but during the first 

year of the 5-Year formula grant, a workshop/webinar about available resources would have 

been helpful. First-year project directors are busy making sure grant activities are allowable and 

managing the budget, that a gentle push in the direction of helpful resources would be a 

wonderful thing.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 622

Our institution has been provided timely and satisfactory service and therefore, presently, there 

are no improvements to note.

PBI has cosistently provided useful TA and I have no suggestions for improvement.

More collaboration and communication

N/A

no suggestions

N/A

n\a

PBI - 2020 - Q24.5. What can PREDOMINANTLY BLACK INSTITUTIONS do to improve 

communication with you?

My program officers are always helpful, it there is a lag in responding it is because of the 

number of schools that they are serving. I am grateful for the time and interest they show in our 

progress. An initial scheduled call might be helpful.

Communications received to our institution are timely and responsive, thus, there are no 

improvements to note.

Communication with PBI has been excellent.

Monthly meetings

Sponsor more webinars and conferences addressing the questions and concerns of the Project 

Directors. Also address some of the changes via a newsletter or something of the sort.

no suggestions

N/A

n/a

PBI - 2020 - Q24.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process and protocols 

associated with this grant competition?

Again, more training for schools new to the program.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 623

Email blasts would improve the overall process and protocols associated with the grant 

competition, to ensure all are informed in a timely and efficient way.

I have been very comfortable with the process and protocols and have no advice for 

improvement.

More collaboration and communication

N/A

no suggestions

None

Provide training and technical support.

Project Prevent

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

No comments

The site is not bad, I'm sure most of my issues are myself and not the actual site. The search feature 

could use a little improvement.

Very clear and user friendly. M

How grant reporting process could be improved?

Using G5 was a challenging. The system kicked me out serval times without saving the information I had 

already added.

Reporting issues for this past year are related to COVID-19, not the USODE...meaning remote learning 

hindered our reporting abilities because it hindered our ability to obtain necessary data.

Email submissions rather than G5 as an option.

The process is fine as it is, we have just struggled a little getting the needed data. We did not get to 

complete the normal student assessments or all of the needed surveys done due to the COVID shut 

down.

Planning meeting one month or two ahead of due date would be good.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 624

Better informed of the timeline when the due date has been changed. Earlier reporting guidelines webinar 

in order to obtain required signatures from the district. More timely responses to inquiries and emails.

Extend the report deadline. Fifteen days following the end of the program year is insufficient to ensure 

that all information has been included.

The GPRA measures have been altered and are unclear. They are also very difficult to measure and 

COVID issues have added to this. Our grant officer has done her best to help us interpret expectations 

and has communicated them as soon as they are available. If decisions could be made in a more timely 

manner this would reduce stress.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

While the CoP seemed useful in the beginning, it is not contextually appropriate for our particular grantee 

site.

None

I can't think of any the technical assistance staff is great.

Leadership Coaching--courageous conversations.

Timely feedback. Resource documents to assist with planning grant objectives and measures.

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments American Institutes for Research

AIR

American Institutes for Research

NSSLE

What is your job role?

Project Manager

Promise Neighborhoods

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 625

I need to further review and use it to provide recommendations

It has been improved. Sometimes find contacts is not as apparent.

Update more frequently. Load all materials from TA providers so everything is in one place

Excellent website. Upgrade from the previous site. Consolidate current open grants in a central location.

do not utilize OESE.ED.GOV website at all.

no suggestions

Continue to develop search functions for faster access to information.

Need more up to date documents.

More links to research and evidence base and local practices in each area of work.

How grant reporting process could be improved?

More conversations about what data is collected and how; what is most relevant to running the program, 

and how to improve ease and use of data for all grantees would be helpful. Changes in data and 

reporting due to COVID 19 would also be helpful.

Review together after submitted to provide opportunity for discussion, planning, TA

Immediate review of reports by program officers to ensure all necessary information submitted, this is 

more relevant for new grantees.

The system utilized Clear Impact Scorecard is difficult to navigate and much of the information feels 

redundant. Ease of use is lacking.

no suggestions

Reviewing the type of data being collected. Some data sets require extensive efforts to gather.

It would be helpful if the Department leveraged our collective data to advocate for policy change. 

Additionally, it would be a great resource to have a data visualization and an executive summary that 

speaks to other PNs' success as a fundraising tool. A document that clearly speaks to ROI.

need more up to date documents and documents written with more clarity.

There are a lot of clicks to enter information in different locations in Clear impact. The data is not always 

the most useful way of tracking our progress.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 626

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

The technical assistance has bee much improved over these last few years. The communication is 

better and the actual assistance is improved.

If the Department staff is hearing the same types of questions, concerns from the grantees let us know 

and offer Zoom meetings to discuss.

Sharing evidence-based approaches in various subject areas and identifying what would be considered 

evidence-based outside of a critical review of research literature.

More timely communication with COVID 19 Roundup email communications. Sometimes they come too 

late and some of the TA events or webinars have already passed or they are on the day you receive the 

email.

no suggestions

Technical assistance provided by Department of Education staff as well as it's TA partners has been 

excellent and very helpful for our work. Only recommendation is to continue implementing in the manner 

currently being provided.

Continue to provide opportunities for PNs to meet with [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] from CSSP. 

These coaching sessions provide thought leadership and an opportunity to discuss challenges and 

develop strategies/solutions.

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

Urban Institute

REL

Sustainability planning COVID-19 what other PN are doing Data Policy development and driving 

agenda

Urban Insitute. Provide excellent support and summaries of reports.

Urban Institute

Urban Institute

Urban Institute

What is your job role?

COO
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 627

Principal Investigator (PI)

Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans 

Program 

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

It needs to mobile phone friendly. It needs better search function by specific areas of the Department of 

Education

Stronger search function. Easier navigation and organization of materials.

The current website is very comprehensive. We don't suggestions for improvement.

The main thing would be to keep it current. Many times I have gone to the website to check on something 

and it would post a 'last updated' date that was weeks or months old.

The challenge of all the website is update immediately the information, it is a continue area to improve.

Overall going on the website is a positive experience. It might be helpful to have FAQs prominently 

featured on landing page.

I understand that the website is well structured and organized. I can access the website and explore the 

topics of interest without difficulty. Obviously there are many areas to see and it takes time.

N/A

How grant reporting process could be improved?

Do not launch a report that has 'bugs.' Remember that the report cover several types of grant, which 

make it difficulty when not all the questions apply to you but you need to answers regardless in order to 

move the next question.

APR is sometimes down and not always reliable. Seems to change a lot. Sometimes APR help requests 

are delayed in responses.

So far so good. We don't have suggestions for improvement.

Oftentimes the instructions are much longer than the report itself. Within the last year, the form for the 

APR changed radically and with little notice. Therefore, I was asked for items I had to research before I 

could report on it because it wasn't what I was collecting data on. For example, it asked questions about 

how many grad students had accessed a website. Since the grant directors do not manage the college 

website, I wasn't prepared to answer that question and it was difficult to gather that data. (Just an 

example).
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 628

Offer more specific training per area of the report.

I have not yet received ANY information about the reporting process

Perhaps prepare a one sheet fact summary.

Currently I have only worked the Interim Perfomance Report

N/A

Webinars to help PD to complete the APR

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

Technical staff in conjunction with Department staff did an outstanding job. Please provide more funds so 

that they can be available more hours for both West and East coast.

It is working really well. The assistance has been provided in detail and on a timely manner.

I don't know how to answer this question. I don't know what the staff responsibilities are. When I was able 

to reach a person, they were always helpful.

Technical Assistance related with review and update of evaluation strategies. How to improve the piloting 

services.

Much of the technical assistance hasn't applied to our activities

I have found them to be very helpful.

Perhaps via emails could add mores technical assistance and also more webinars.

Have had significant problems with the system changed in APR submittal. Need to have changes beta 

tested prior to release to general grant funded institutions.

What is your job role?

Professor/Grant Director

Department Chair

project director

CUSTOM QUESTIONS
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 629

PPOHA - 2020 - Q19.2. How can PPOHA improve the usefulness of the technical 

assistance you receive?

More funding for both Technical and Department staff to support Project on both the West and 

East coast. Long hour for the support lines.

More timely and consistent support for APR.

It is working fine for us.

The problems I encountered over the years were less about the technical assistance but more 

about the redundancy and timeliness of the documents describing and requiring responses.

Our program officer is non-respondent, when we do get a response, does not answer questions 

and does not seem knowledgeable about our questions. We receive little information about 

reporting requirements and the technical assistance often does not seem to apply to our 

program. Information about webinars is provided last minute, and then are not even running 

when we shift our schedules to attend.

Having a list of FAQs might be helpful.

PPOHA - 2020 - Q19.5. What can the PPOHA do to improve communication with you?

My Program Officer has large load of grants to monitor. They need for help by more staff.

[REDACTED] was excellent.

The communication has been timely and clear. Thank you.

I don't have any suggestions here.

The communication is excellent.

Frequent communication about things that matter, such as annual and mid-year reporting!

PPOHA - 2020 - Q19.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process and 

protocols associated with this grant competition?

Grant competition is complex. It requires understanding not only the Department but grants.gov. 

These process all tedious and require experience. The whole process requires overall but it is 

difficult task. I do not have real solution. I can provide one step. You should take one large 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 630

public university and one small private university. Observer what it take to input the 

Department's data into process. Start with the end user (the Grantee).

Perhaps more consistent communication but we appreciated that we were not micromanaged 

and were trusted to run our grant program.

Perhaps more time available to prepare the grant application submission may be helpful.

The PPOHA grant has different allowables than many of the other competitions--for instance, 

direct aid to students in the form of fellowships. Sometimes, the application materials do not 

reflect the differences in the competition regulations; therefore, the online 'one-size-fits-all' 

format makes it difficult to respond to the questions adequately. I would suggest revising the 

online application format in ways that reflect the actual goals of the particular grant.

This grant competition is clear in term of protocols and the overall process.

REAP-Rural and Low Income School (RLIS) Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Provide a place where archived guidance and information could be accessed for reference.

Not sure. I can usually find what I am looking for, just take time.

My only struggle has been making sure to get the new updated link. All of the old web pages still are live 

and will show up when a district or SEA searches for the proper (new) web-page URL's.

I do not have access to the website.

It can be a little cumbersome at times, but overall it contains good information.

Provide a training and/or modules to navigate the site to specific programs.

More robust examples of allowable uses of SRSA and RLIS funds. It's the biggest question asked, the 

examples are sparse, often a poor use, and requires that the person is familiar with I-A, II-A, III-A, IV-A 

alllowable use--that's a non-answer.

I haven't used it this past year so I could not provide a valid suggestion.

For me the new site easy to navigate. I am able to find what I was looking for quickly. No suggestions for 

improvement.

More up to date information and post webinar handouts to share with LEAs

Focusing on making easy to Navigate the Website is really important
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 631

The staff and new website at ED has been amazing. They are always quick to respond and have 

assisted any need we have. We love the OESE website and look forward to sharing with the LEAs.

Continue to update materials as the old site was seriously outdated.

Sites are relativity easy to use.

The search feature has never yielded current results for me. Please don't bring up outdated/null 

information in searches.

Many links are broken or out dated, information is not well organized and easy to find.

I have a hard time remembering the new site. I have to go to the old site and then get to the new site. 

When I search Rural Education at USDoE, why doesn't it send me to the new site instead of the old site.

Organized better

The RLIS website is not helpful at all but the max.gov platform if very helpful.

How grant reporting process could be improved?

They system works for me.

Nothing to improve at this time.

I am new to this role and still learning.

Nothing. Good work.

I feel the current process is very straight forward and easy to complete and submit.

Provide training/modules on performance data metrics; effectiveness of specific programs with 

consolidated/aligned approach; resources and timelines for reporting

The issue is subgrantees must set their own relevant, diverse program measures. Trying to aggregate 

these into a state-level report is impossible.

More transparency on what the data is being used for.

Right now RLIS does not have reporting requirements to my knowledge.

Put CSPR data requirements out earlier so we have time to gather the data needed.

Difficult for me to say as our reporting is done in a centralized unit in our agency. The parts I'm required 

to work with are clear and easy to handle.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 632

Process has improved

The MAX.gov intermediary is not user friendly nor is it helpful to have one more platform to manage.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

Provide regular conferences (on-site) and trainings related to rural schools and challenges which would 

allow for a better network and resource exchange.

The assistance I needed was met.

Nothing to share.

No suggestions right now

Nothing.

I feel that the trainings provided are appropriate and meet the programmatic needs.

provide guidance/TA to SEA that promotes/supports request for assistance via program specific staff 

rather than SEA Federal Liaison only (or identified SEA representative)

This survey seems somewhat out-of-sync with the program being evaluated. REAP and RLIS are pretty 

small, simple programs. I would prefer the requirements, reporting, and expectations for these programs 

remain the same, knowing that not much of the TA this survey asks about is provided. In contrast, I 

would not want to see an increase in requirements, reporting, and expectations, even if accompanied by 

an increase in support. We do not the time in our work life for this small add-on grant to grow.

1) Ask the SEAs what their needs are before providing TA 2) Any changes to the eligibility process need

to be CLEARLY articulated as soon as they are made so the SEAs can relay that information to their

LEAs

This is my second year running this program in my state. It would be helpful if Department staff could 

come up with a timeline of activities related to RLIS (and SRSA) so that over the course of a year, I can 

anticipate what will occur and what responsibilities I have related to REAP grant. Then, for those of us 

new or relatively new, a webinar going over the timeline would be great. We get the big training, and that 

is very useful, so maybe this goes into the big webinar, a graphic timeline would help.

Presentations on completing the new SRSA application were excellent, as has been communication to 

our LEA recipients. Presentations on the programs, such as at the annual ESEA conference have 

provided nice overviews, but haven't always illuminated more in-depth needs or common questions. 

Eligibility spreadsheet is a bit on an enigma to me--could use more training on that, as well as how SRSA 

and RLIS eligibility is determined and allocations are made. Is new non-regulatory guidance for the REAP 

program coming out soon? Is it just me, or is it pretty outdated/overdue?

Create work groups within states so we can network and collaborate together.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 633

USDE conduct quarterly meetings with SEAs to discuss and give guidance on specific topics related to 

SRSA and RLIS.

The TA given for REAP is very well organized and well presented. I have been able to refer back to 

presentations when I have questions.

If USED would fully manage SRSA and not rely on states to do that go-between role, it would eliminate a 

lot of confusion for LEAs and not waste communicate time having to filter through states who don't 

manage the application platform and are not the grant managers.

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

Neglected or Delinquent Education Technical Assistance Center

We receive support and assistance from our comprehensive center.

REL with webinars/trainings with best practices, data

NDETAC, RELs, The Title IV one...T4P4?, truth be told I get a ton of emails from the DOE. 

Communication is great, but I oversee 8 grant programs...it would be nice if I could expect 

communication from 5 or 6 primary addresses at the DOE, vs. 30. All the third party DOE contractors and 

redundant messages on multiple listservs...If I don't recognize the sender, it doesn't get much attention 

from me, which means that sometimes things get missed on first pass.

[REDACTED]

Comprehensive Centers.

Education Northwest

REL Midwest, Youth for Youth

[REDACTED]

What is your job role?

SEA

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

REAPRLIS - 2020 - Q50.1. How can the REAP program office improve the MAX.gov 

process, through which States provide the necessary data to the Department to 

determine annual LEA eligibility for the REAP RLIS and SRSA formula grant programs?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 634

N/A

I have had no problems with the MAX.gov process.

Push emails to RLIS State Coordinators timeliness through out the grant funding cycle. Don't

like to miss notifications and then rely on MAX.gov to go and find the notifications.

No suggestions right now

Nothing. Good work.

If there is a way to provide more direct links, instead of the pathways. That would make it easier 

to navigate.

Continue to incorporate feedback and input from Stakeholders; clear transparency and 

communication

When you want us to reach out to LEAs on your behalf, we need for the current, relevant 

documents to be available on OESE's public website, we need the link to stay stable, and we 

need you to do a better job of dating documents so we know if changes have occurred. Posting 

on Max.gov does not achieve that. Also, in the winter when you keep revising eligibility and 

summer when you keep revising your 'final award' info, it would be great if you could say 

something like 'In this revision of the national spreadsheet, there were only changes to the 

following states: Maine, Oregon, Florida' etc. It's a bulky document that I customize each time 

you update. I don't like having to log into Max.gov only to discover an insignificant or irrelevant 

change has taken place. It would be considerate if [REDACTED] or whomever would provide a 

one sentence summary of what the change/update is, so we don't to go to Max.gov when it's 

irrelevant to our state. We're busy people!

An updated interface for MAX.gov would be helpful. Currently it is very 'clunky' to receive and 

submit files as proven by different states uploading to the wrong place annually.

The REAP program office could provide a brief training on MAX for the new people. It took some 

poking around for me to figure out if I'm in the right spot, and if am I seeing everything I should 

be seeing. The term 'child page' was new for me, too (first reaction is 'what's a child's page'). It's 

a good way to set things up, I'm just unsure if I'm really getting everything out of it that I can or 

should be getting.

Touched on this before. A bit of training on the spreadsheet and how eligibility and awards are 

determined would be nice, as I get a lot of questions from LEAs.

Provide better communication to the SEAs regarding changes in the Master Eligibility 

Spreadsheet and communication to LEAs that receive SRSA funds.

Needs to emphasis the schedule (dates of the data) required from the state to determine the 

eligibility. Such as what census year is required, what period and year is needed for ADA count

I have no suggestions at this time. Max.gov is easy to navigate, I've never had any problems 

accessing it.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 635

Not much more improvement needed. The process has evolved over the past 5 years and it is 

pretty seamless now.

This process works well. I do find getting emails when a state makes changes a bit irritating, but 

still, system works well.

It would be nice if we received a notification that the information was received.

REAPRLIS - 2020 - Q50.2. How could we make the annual fall What SEAs Need to Know 

webinar more beneficial to your State educational agency?

Provide a different format.

The last webinar was perfect for my needs.

No suggestions right now

Nothing. Great work and great presenters.

I feel that this webinar is beneficial and provides the information needed to operate the 

statewide program.

Include a section/time for what an LEA needs to know and invite LEAs to listen in (so message 

is consistent and clear)

I think the webinar was fine. However, the actual instructions had significant errors last year. 

Also, we should have 6-8 weeks to gather the data.

Provide a 1-page document prior to the webinar with all of the key/important points so folks 

know if there is anything specifically they would need to attend and get clarification on.

I've added some comments about this in other open text boxes. In sum, provide a graphic 

timeline with benchmark requirements for RLIS/SRSA so that cyclical work can be anticipated; 

provide a run-through of the MAX site for new users.

Create breakout sessions for Q & A and provide copies of the recording so we can go back and 

watch it later.

I think increasing the number of webinars are needed to allow opportunities of asking questions

Include as a Q&A some of the most common questions SEAs have asked the REAP team 

regarding both programs.

Its great and covers all areas now!

These webinars are awesome and cover everything I need to know.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 636

This webinar is very useful and well organized.

REAPRLIS - 2020 - Q50.3. How do you hear about REAP program updates and events 

(e.g., webinars)?

Select all that apply.

Max.gov

WestEd CoP

MAX.gov; my REAP colleague from a neighboring state is also good about alerting me to 

updates.

REAPRLIS - 2020 - Q50.6. Please use the space below to share any additional thoughts 

you have about the RLIS program.

I am not aware of many of the 'services' as mentioned in this survey, offered by the Rural 

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

My contacts at the Department of Education have been extremely responsive to my needs and 

questions.

None at this time.

None right now

Nothing.

Overall I am satisfied. I wish, however, that our state contact at ED were better about 

responding to emails. I know that some staff do respond promptly, but our state's contact does 

not. At times I send the same question 2-3 times before receiving a response. At times I receive 

no response. This makes my job harder, and I am less able to assist our school districts 

because of this.

Overall, I am pleased with the RLIS program.

Thank you for the ongoing communication and support.

The REAP office has made many significant improvements in the year which are greatly 

appreciated. In particular, providing each LEA an estimate of their SRSA -vs- RLIS was a huge 

help to SEAs and LEAs.

The revolving door of REAP program officers makes it difficult to develop working relationships 

with.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 637

The RLIS program office has been exceptionally responsive to my need requests via MAX and 

even email. They are courteous, knowledgeable, and timely in their responses. Thank you, 

much appreciated and incredibly necessary for me in providing assistance to REAP districts in 

my state. Their guidance helps me learn the grant process and become better at what I am 

doing and providing.

The staff that I've worked with at REAP has been excellent--responsive, helpful, knowledgeable. 

Additionally, the couple of webinars I've seen have been great. I think more 'paper' resources 

would go a long way--cheat sheets, non-regulatory guidance, walk-throughts, etc...maybe they 

exist and I don't know where?
Final Report

2020 638

Department of Education Office of Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey 

REAP-Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) 

Program 

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

N/A

I'm very happy with the website and it's an improvement from the past and the application is easier too. 

Thanks for the improvements!

n/a

N/A

Website is appropriate as is

N/A Works fine

Having to constantly change passwords is a major headache.

It is very easy to use and navigate.

N/A

No problems

No suggestions at this time.

The website is not too difficult to navigate. Although we realize the security required, the resetting of the 

password so often can be problematic.

You have done a great job of being responsive to our needs thank you. Just make sure to consider user 

friendliness when making any adjustments to the site.

n/a

Make it simpler and easier to use/navigate. Also, make it visually appealing and not overwhelming. For 

example, small font sizes and too many words on a page can be intimidating to the user.

Not really sure

I think they've done rather well.

With the recent revisions of the website, there are no current improvements I would suggest.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 639

Just more information on how the process works and offer additional support to new users.

None at this time.

More detailed search available.

Was very easy and smooth process

I found it difficult/cumbersome to try to find the correct area to get to REAP. I felt it wasn't super easy. I 

typed REAP into the search bar and it didn't bring up the REAP page - it was a different area.

It is not very user friendly especially if you do not know the number reference.

Make it as straight forward as possible.

Not applicable - I did not visit the website

We didn't use that website.

You have to guess as to what you are looking for when you are in the site. It is not user friendly in my 

estimation

How grant reporting process could be improved?

It works well how it is.

Last year's grant was an enormous improvement from the previous year. Things were streamlined and 

simplified. Thanks

n/a

N/A

N/A - Simple and straightforward.

No changes necessary

more clarity and quicker response

At this time it is very easy to use and navigate.

N/A

Nothing
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 640

No suggestions at this time.

n/a

Make it simpler and easier to understand.

none

There are no suggestions, at this time, to improve the process.

None at this time.

Don't understand the question. What reporting process?

Honestly I don't review much of the reports. Time is very limited in the office we wear many hats so 

sending me anything to read more than likely is not going to happen. One page maybe.

It is SO much better than it was a couple of years ago. I greatly appreciated how much easier it was to 

complete for my little rural schools.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

N/A

I had little experience with this part

n/a

N/A

N/A

Needs are adequately met

less waiting time on help calls

They are very helpful and informative.

N/A

Nothing

None at this time.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 641

more reap training options

n/a

none

This department needs more telephone staff to answer questions. It is very cumbersome for people to 

get access to someone to assist them.

None at this time.

Support wasn't provided

The online application is much easier than before. The quick how to webinar that showed how to 

complete the application was helpful.

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

I don't remember.

What is your job role?

Assistant to the Business Manager

Asst. Superintendent

Assistant Sperintendent

Director of Operations

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

REAPSRS - 2020 - Q51.1. How could we make SRSA webinars more beneficial to you?

They are good as they are.

n/a

n/a

They are great
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 642

NA

Nothing at this time. Very helpful.

N/A

Nothing

No changes are necessary.

Consider allowing the purchase of software with instructional hardware, it is very difficult to fully 

use the hardware without the proper software.

The current webinars are effective as is.

Simple, easy to understand. Record all of them and post online so users can watch them on 

their own schedule.

don't know

There are already very beneficial, and I can't think of a way to improve them at this time.

Webinars suitable for new users.

REAPSRS - 2020 - Q51.2. How do you hear about REAP program updates and events 

(e.g., webinars)?

Select up to 3 options.

New Jersey School Business Officials, County Office

REAPSRS - 2020 - Q51.3. Please check up to 3 topics for technical assistance that you 

will need in the future in order to improve the performance of your SRSA grant.

Select up to 3 options.

Continuous updating of information, i.e. DUNS, Passwords, etc..

REAPSRS - 2020 - Q51.5. Please provide any suggestions for how the REAP team can 

reduce the overall burden to your school district.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 643

Overall process goes very well.

n/a

REAP is very flexible and has been wonderful to work with. If it was not for REAP - technology 

for our students would not come close to what they have now. We cannot thank you enough.

The link for the application should be sent to the Business Administrators as well. It was only 

sent to the districts superintendents.

This year was very smooth, no issues

NA

Nothing at this time.

None

none

None at this time.

Continue to offer the opportunities for training and clarification as well as application submission 

tips and tricks.

I like the new process

It's not a burden.

Keep it simple and easier to apply.

Site can be hard to locate the grant application

they already did made the application process pretty streamline

REAPSRS - 2020 - Q51.6. Please use the space below to share any additional thoughts 

you have about the SRSA program.

email confirmations need to be able to be sent to someone other than Superintendent. Most 

Superintendents do not forward or even now what the emails pertain to.

Great program and very appreciative to have it.

I have been happy
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 644

n/a

n/a

N/A

N/A

NA

Need information on award amounts and how they are calculated.

None

none

None at this time.

Since we don't use the site often, it can take time to re-learn the application process.

Rehabilitation Long-Term Training Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Keep it up to date. Make it user friendly.

More information about resources available and how to find them. I have had difficulty finding information 

about grant applications and also finding state reports.

Double check the links and review old pages for updated content and for missing content.

Staff need more training on what university programs actually do. They also seem overwhelmed by 

reporting requirements and ask for the exact same information over and over and never seem to 

remember the answers. They waste a lot of time.

None. So far I am satisfied with the website.

I just don't feel it is user friendly, not very intuitive. For a first time grant manager, I think I spend too much 

time looking for what I need.

Provide an updated list of currently funded grantees and contact information.

How grant reporting process could be improved?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 645

PIMS needs major improvements starting with putting the grant number on communications.

This could be improve by providing the report instruction earlier and having the reporting upload available 

earlier. Some of the requested report information is duplicated across sections.

The data collection is very confusing and not relevant to our program. We also need to re-enter 

everything every time instead of building on prior reports. It is a very poor system.

None.

Numerous issues came up with the loading of my grant reporting packaging (it was not there and took 

many calls to help desks and project officer and supervisors to get it resolved). The annual report 

instructions were confusing and contained inaccuracies. G5 was difficult to navigate and required 

support from help desk on numerous occassions.

Feels like requests are typically made 'last minute', or right before a report is due. I realize reporting is an 

important part of the process. But last minute adjustments or requests puts everyone in a bind. Timely 

communication is key.

Provide consistent guidance (from all project officers) regarding how the reports are to be submitted, and 

approved by whom within the institution.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

Some Project Officer are much better informed that others. Some Project Officers do not have a good 

understanding of the projects they oversee.

I was not expecting technical assistance since there has been very little that has been of any benefit.

N/A

Provide outreach to project director about available technical assistance.

I wonder if I am just unaware of some of the supports potentially provided. Better communication and 

marketing of what is available to grant managers may be beneficial.

Providing an updated Payback Manual would be very helpful.

What is your job role?

Project director

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

RLTT - 2020 - Q10.2. How can RLTT Project Officers assist you better with fiscal 

management, program reporting or other technical areas?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 646

Reports on status of the grant have been very helpful in making sure funds are being drawn 

down.

Don't ask for the exact information over and over

N/A

More clarity on working within the fiscal year budget and higher education academic year 

budgets (which differ). More clarification on carryover funds for events such as pandemic when 

some funds cannot be used. More support for the G5 reporting.

I think templates are always great. Helps us know what elements are required in terms of 

reporting and take out guesswork.

Schedule review of grant applications so that programs have more than 24 hours notice to start 

up new grant projects, so it is possible to fulfill obligations for the first year of those projects.

RLTT - 2020 - Q10.5. Please provide an explanation to support your rating.

Availability of scholarships promotes study in the field. Requirement to place all RSA scholars 

in internships in state VR agencies cannot be met due to constraints of the state VR agency 

over which we have no control.

The financial support allow the program to recruit students of colors and students with 

disabilities.

The program is filling a huge need within state-federal VR and provides quality training for the 

next generation of counselors. Through this program, individuals with disabilities are in turn 

given better quality services which serves an important need in working towards a better quality 

of life and in promoting social justice.

Many of our supported scholars are already working in State VR agencies. They come to us as 

part of state supported CSPD programs. I would like to see students become aware of 

rehabilitation counseling and the many possibilities associated with the degree in terms of 

serving people with disabilities. Given the continued high turnover in terms of the counselors 

working in State VR agencies, I think the system needs to look at what they can do to support 

graduates/scholars post graduation to maintain their interest in working in that practice setting.

Programs work extensively with state VR agencies to develop appropriate practicum or 

internship placements for scholars.

RLTT - 2020 - Q10.6. How has the implementation of the Workforce Innovation and 

Opportunity Act affected your grant project?

Required changes in program content.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 647

It has made it more difficult to get graduates employed with state VR agencies now that WIOA 

permits state VR agencies to hire counselors with bachelor's degrees. We are currently trying to 

work with our state VR agency through the State Rehabilitation Council to encourage the 

agency to recruit master's level counselors in the interests of both quality of services to clients 

and staff retention. Bachelor's level candidates are not equipped to do the job effectively, yet 

are getting the same pay as master's level candidates.

We expect WIOA to reduce the number of qualified rehabilitation counselors working in SVR 

agencies.

No

I don't know.

Yes, it has increased interest in RLTT as many of our applicants want to work with transition age 

youth and there is a demand for VR counselors to work in transition services.

I think the lessening of the educational requirements was a mistake, but I also recognize I am 

likely biased. However, we ware seeing more and more students with limited disability 

knowledge and awareness. This impacts their ability to provide comprehensive services; they 

may simply not be aware of the biopsychosocial aspects of disability to truly serve the 

individuals they work with.

It is unfortunate that WIOA reduced the requirements for qualified Rehabilitation Counselors 

(Comprehensive System of Personnel Development), which reduces demand by highly qualified 

applicants for this training. On the positive side, responsiveness to WIOA has increased focus 

on transition-aged youth.

RLTT - 2020 - Q10.7. How has the conversion to CACREP standards affected your grant 

project?

Moving from 48 to 60 hour program

The elimination of the dual accreditation in clinical rehabilitation counseling and clinical mental 

health counseling at the end of current accreditation terms for programs with dual accreditation 

or who had both CORE and CACREP accreditation before the merger forces programs to make 

a choice of a single area of specialization. Per CACREP policy, students who want to complete 

two specializations must complete an internship in each area of specialization. This is 

unrealistic for students who want to graduate and start a career. This policy needs to be 

eliminated. The only way to keep a program viable, at least in our geographic area, is to opt for 

the Clinical Mental Health Counseling specialization and then keep rehabilitation counseling as 

a focus within the Clinical Mental Health Counseling specialization, which CACREP is OK with. 

Prospective students are not familiar with rehabilitation counseling and also are concerned with 

the ability to get licensed, particularly in states where rehabilitation counseling is licensed 

separately from the licensed professional counselor credential, which is the credential 

prospective and current students want. Our grant project and our program in general has 

remained successful by integrating rehabilitation counseling within clinical mental health 

counseling. However, this is a major issue for the field, and work is needed with CACREP 

around the areas of specializations. In my opinion, CACREP should get rid of all the 

specializations and train Clinical Counselors, as social work programs do, The many 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 648

specializations serve only to divide and weaken the counseling field. Also, a look at the number 

of accredited programs by area of specialization as reported in the CACREP Annual Report 

shows that the overwhelming majority of programs are Clinical Mental Health Counseling or 

School Counseling. It seems these are areas to focus on with 'specializations' within these two 

large areas.

It has diverted some focus toward general competencies rather than rehabilitation specific 

competencies.

We are CACREP so no change

The students are taking more credits per term therefore, the student costs have increased but I 

have figured out a way to still fund all students who are interested - but only their last year in the 

program.

N/A

It has impacted some of the interest in vocational rehabilitation with more students seeking a 

more clinical/mental health internship and employment. As such, we have lost students who 

would have applied for the grant as they would rather not complete the payback in VR or the VR 

focused internship.

It has not impacted it as greatly as other programs. Many of our students are interested in state 

licensure as counselors. As such, we had started migrating that way. I do not see the CACREP 

merger as an issue - the larger issue to me is the organizational culture with State VR settings 

that does not allow rehabilitation counselors to function with their full skill set. In my opinion, this 

is part of the turn-over problem. We train them for the field of rehabilitation counseling, but the 

practice setting of State VR does not allow or support them in using their entire skill set. So they 

end up looking for other options that allow them to use their entire skill set.

The program will soon need to decide whether to require students to complete two separate 

internships (to satisfy both Rehabilitation Counseling and Clinical Mental Health Counseling 

standards), at great expense to the students and to the program needing to provide appropriate 

supervision, or to have two separate tracks. If separate tracks will be created for Rehabilitation 

Counseling and Clinical Mental Health Counseling, students pursuing the Rehabilitation 

Counseling track may have problems seeking counseling licensure in many states. That will 

significantly reduce the number of qualified applicants seeking admission into the Rehabilitation 

Counseling program.

Increase in credit course hours and the economic impact

RLTT - 2020 - Q10.8. How have the 2016 changes to the Rehabilitation Long-Term 

Training program affected your grant project?

Not much

Placement in internships in state VR agencies has been very difficult due to issues within the 

agencies such as lack of qualified clinical supervisors. This requirement should be eliminated.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 649

We are still having issues with State VR offices being willing to take interns - we are working on 

it, but I would really appreciate if RSA would work with CSAVR to help this process (I have 

suggested this several times during national meetings).

N/A

No that I know of.

I'm not sure - our award was awarded in 2019, so we have been able to focus on the updated 

changes and didn't have to compare it to previous grants.

It's difficult to respond to this question, because we've mostly rolled with the changes. The 

requirement that scholars who exit after completing less than one year of the program must 

repay financially instead of with employment is a change that has affected few scholars, but has 

a profound impact on those who have so exited. Collecting and securely storing documentation 

of citizenship can be a challenge, given our university prohibition against electronically saving 

social security numbers. When not dealing with a pandemic, there are work-arounds (like 

keeping hard copy materials in locked physical files), but when mandatory telecommuting is 

implemented, this is a challenge.

None

RLTT - 2020 - Q10.9. Describe how your Rehabilitation Long-Term Training grant project 

is improving employment outcomes for individuals with disabilities.

Better qualified counselors are able to serve the most severe persons with disabilities

First, our grant has resulted in the expansion of the number of students in the program, which 

leads to greater numbers of students trained in rehabilitation counseling to deliver services to 

people with disabilities. We also now offer the entire degree online, which in the age of COVID, 

has led to students who are comfortable working remotely. While it is difficult to tie these 

outcomes to employment outcomes for clients. it would seem that these would be positive for 

such outcomes.

It is providing much needed pools of qualified rehabilitation counselors for state VR agencies 

and their partners. There are large expected vacancies in the next 5 years in SVR agencies and 

their close partners, and the RLTT program will help fill these vacancies. Additionally, the RLTT 

program has facilitated greater collaboration between the our SVR agencies and our university.

Our students are well trained and deeply committed to helping people with disabilities reach 

their employment goals.

Students are drawn to the program with the hope of earning a scholarship during their last year 

in the program. I am not sure how many would still be able to finish the education without the 

scholarship opportunities.

The grant project allows the program to train students to be more competent in working with 

individuals with disabilities in terms of supported employment, vocational rehabilitation, work 

adjustment, and advocacy.

We are training students on emerging best practices and provide a comprehensive curriculum 

that equips them to work with today's consumers. As such, we are sending well qualified 

students into internships and subsequently in the field to provide optimal services to individuals 

with disabilities.

We do think our students are getting a high quality education, are passing the CRC exam at a 

high rate, and many are working in state VR agencies upon graduation. They seem passionate 

about their field and genuinely interested in improving the lives of People with Disabilities. We 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 650

hope this improving and enhancing employment outcomes as they take their passion for serving 

people with disabilities and knowledge of evidence based practices to enhance employment 

outcomes into the State VR setting. Feedback from partner agencies seems to support this.

We improve outcomes by 1) giving RSA scholars the tools they need to effectively collaborate 

with people with disabilities to achieve their employment and life goals, and 2) exposing RSA 

scholars to the benefits of working for state VR agencies, increasing the probability that they will 

apply what they have learned in the program to enhance employment outcomes with state VR 

agency clients.

Replication and Expansion of High-Quality Charter Schools

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

It's pretty good now. Please keep making it better and more user friendly

Make it cleaner, with fewer options on the main page that funnel the user to more and more specific 

information per page.

I understand you are constrained by the administration but if you are going to ask about the helpfulness 

of materials, there are no materials for CSP grantees that are program specific following the application 

stage.

Site appears adequate. Might suggest more contrast in menu options (e.g. bold and larger font, contrast 

buttons, etc.).

I have never used it.

More user friendly vocabulary terms, or handy list of definitions for some of the 'inside baseball' lingo 

used.

How grant reporting process could be improved?

Uploading our report into the G5 system is confusing since sometimes there are measures that are 

redundant -- it's unclear if I have to repeat information in these different sections, or leave them blank,

We spoke with WestEd officials and learned the May2019 site visit was quite satisfactory. They shared 

they submitted the report to Ed.gov officials. We were promised a copy of the report by Ed.gov officials 

but it has not arrived yet.

Get away from overly bureaucratic forms and information requirements. What is the minimal amount of 

information to ensure that the funds are spent according to the grant purpose.

g5 is about the least user-friendly website I have ever used. It is extremely time consuming to complete 

the performance reporting in g5. The site also does not allow entering the GPRA measures as directed in 

the webinar. The process does not account for the fact that it simply does not make sense to report on 

every project measure every year.

Getting more in sync with school networks regarding when we have access to certain data annually.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 651

As a grantee in our fifth year of funding, this process is fairly clear since we learned by doing. However, I 

think novice grantees would benefit from front-loaded training to understand how to develop performance 

measures, how to input data, how the data is used, and revisiting through the years. This would also be 

beneficial prior to the start of the final year to understand the process for final reports. Although there is a 

cursory webinar for novice grantees, we really have to rely on figuring out the process as we go.

It's frustrating when we have to do our annual report well in advance to the close of the reporting period. 

This means we have to provide another update once the reporting period is over. It feels like doing 

double work.

The most challenging element of the reporting process is that every year, after I submit, the quality and 

content of the feedback I receive on the report varies tremendously. Because my program officer has 

changed every year, their expectations about the report have changed every year.

The APR portal is difficult to navigate and to the point where we have inadvertently submitted incorrect 

information not because we didn't have the data to submit, but because it was not represented clearly in 

the system.

It's fine. No real need for improvement.

Don't understand why we have to submit the same data twice: Once for WestEd (a vendor) and another 

time within the Replication & Expansion sheet for our Program Officer.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

Honestly don't even know if I've ever actually received this TA...

Be more direct in what is needed to be in compliance.

Apologies have not been overseeing the grant for long and have not had any technical assistance. We 

have also had 2 new program officers during my time overseeing the grant.

I think guidance and training would be especially beneficial, particularly for novice grantees, and grantees 

approaching their final award year. Additional opportunities for networking with other grantees is helpful. 

The annual convening for Project Directors is informative, but I think are missed opportunities for deeper 

engagement and meaningful opportunities for learning. I appreciate the hands-off approach (as opposed 

to micromanaging), but I think it would be helpful to front load a lot of guidance and check ins for novice 

grantees. I realize this is difficult as the CSP office has seen A LOT of short staffing and high turnover 

just in the four years we have been part of the program. We appreciate the hard work of program officers 

and the CSP office in supporting the work of grantees.

I think there is a range of needs across grantees. Not everything offered is always applicable.

It would be helpful to at least have technical assistant about grant management expectations. I don't think 

CSP will run technical assistance that will make our school better.

Proactive reporting and budget management support would be useful.

We didn't ask for technical assistance, so can't really respond to this.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 652

We've worked with some wonderful Department staff members, but we've also worked with many 

Department staff members, seeing several shifts in our primary point of contact across two CSP grants 

(one Expansion and Replication; one National Dissemination). Some turnover is expected in any 

organization, but it's been hard to develop a strong working relationship with Department staff in the 

midst of so much change. We also get the sense that Department staff are wearing lots of hats and have 

a lot on their plates. It can be hard to schedule time to talk with them. Usually we're scheduling a few 

weeks to a month out. It's often the best the staff can do, but when we have a technical assistance 

question that needs a timely answer, it can also delay the project. Overall, if possible, I'd recommend 

hiring more staff so that Department staff can be more responsive to grantee questions.

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

Manhattan Strategy Group

National Charter School Resource Center

What is your job role?

Director of Evaluation

Senior Board Member

RSA Vocational Rehabilitation Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

RSA does not give answers to questions. It refers to the 'guidance' but when its in conflict and is in a 

gray area, no one steps up to give answers. Vagueness is the standard. The web site looks nice, you 

need answers to make it worth while. That' a cultural thing within RSA.

I'm not sure at this time

Recent changes are an improvement. Still learning how to navigate it

Do not have recommendations at this time

It takes me several (too many) clicks to get what I need.

The website search engine is not specific to the VR content. RSA needs its own website where content 

can be aggregated for the user and searches easier. I find going out to Google and typing my search 

request is often faster and yields better results than the internal search function.

The frustrations I sometimes have is that there was a transition of reports and plans, and when I do a 

search, it feels I often can readily locate old data, but am more challenged to locate the up-to-date data 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 653

and state plans. I don't have a specific fix, but a wish that searches were consistently seamless and 

successful.

I think the new website it very user-friendly. Far more than the old one.

More user friendly. Categorized by topics/programs.

Start over. Whole new approach needed. Current site is too complicated, does not provide quality 

information, is cumbersome, lacks appeal, is confusing, looks and functions in an antiquated manner, 

little to no interactivity, data does not seem trustworthy or reliable.

Less bureaucracy, more actual content, don't be vague in responses, list contact information for followup. Less tips and more actual interpretation of what is needed for compliance

Changes that were made recently help in some aspects given that it's easier to look in the related areas, 

however, some information that was contained previously is not there and hard to find. Possibly a more 

robust search feature to be able to get to information with key words

Perhaps adding a 'home' tab to each page. I couldn't find state reports.

The Department is making progress with the new website regarding ease of finding relevant information.

I'd like to see the quarterly approved 911 reports on the website if possible.

How grant reporting process could be improved?

It's developing nicely. Turn around time on response to electronic inquiries regarding fiscal issues could 

be better.

provide annual review and technical assistance in advance of reporting deadlines for process 

improvements

I don't know where to begin. We have to report on far too many data elements. Lets simplify the 911.

The recent release of the RSA-17 is a good example of useful tools provided. The crosswalk and form 

instructions are great. I would suggest a webinar in addition to those tools when a major reporting form is 

changed. The Data Unit has done a pretty good job of providing some training webinars. States use 

different case management systems. Often it is trying to get the vendor in sync with both the business 

requirements of the SVRA and RSA guidance. There is a training component related to data elements. 

The ramp to train at the ground level is longer than the rollout of guidance and creates some 

implementation challenges. The 911 Dashboards are very helpful but not timely enough. As a result, our 

agency is attempting to replicate at the counselor and office level so that the data drives performance 

versus lagging the performance results. Bottom line, all the case management systems out there are 

clunky and need to be upgraded because reporting to RSA is not the real issue to drive performance. 

RSA hopefully is using the data it gets to advocate for and inform Dept of ED stakeholders - I think that is 

the case

I appreciate the increase in RSA's compilation and dissemination of quarterly data. Data hasn't always 

matched our internal data, in particular justified eligibility and plan delays. The MSG and credentialing 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 654

measures feel imposed upon VR rather than a natural way we would collect and measure progress - very 

DOL heavy. Not RSA's doing, and we have relied heavily on a combination of RSA staff guidance, 

technical guidance and WINTAC supports to understand how best to document and measure. RSA staff 

were very thoughtful and helpful in developing MSG measures, and I want to acknowledge the improved 

responsiveness of our newer RSA team to our questions and keeping us alerted to upcoming 

requirements. Thank you to our team!

I think knowing how all the data we capture is used by RSA would be very helpful.

Understanding the state challenges would help us implement the data challenges.

Current grant reporting process is completely lacking and does not meet our VR agency needs. The 

best way to improve the grant reporting process is to have one (1) RSA driven database that is cloud 

based, easy to use, is interactive and inputs only the data that is relative to getting people with disabilities 

successful employment outcomes. Why must each VR agency spend valuable VR dollars on their 

own proprietary database? The grant reporting process should be simple. Yet RSA overcomplicates the 

process, which leads to VR agencies spending money on tools that have little or nothing to do about 

getting people with disabilities employed. The ONLY thing RSA should focus on is getting people with 

disabilities employed!!! Instead it seems as if RSA only cares about expanding their bureaucracy, 

promulgating byzantine regulations and keeping the status quo.

Get it right the first time. Can't count the number of times we have had to report inaccuracies only to 

receive second and third versions.

Make it less confussing and less restricted.

The reporting process works fine, however it feels that staff spend an excessive amount of time collecting 

data points, this takes away from the primary duties of a VRC. While necessary to collect data, would 

there be a way to ease the burden on the feild.

Last quarter's RSA 911 report submission was challenging, and this quarter's has proven to be difficult as 

well. For this report, the staff resources & programming costs to produce the report have increased 

greatly. Two things will help: 1. Don't change content of the report. The more that stays the same, the 

better everyone will be in completing, submitting, and validating the report. 2. Make the submission 

process as easy as possible.

Do not require additional data to be collected that isn't statutorily necessary.

continueing the simplification, less paperwork in MSGs

reporting requirements have created significant administrative burden on staff providing direct services. 

This focus on reporting instead of providing services negatively impacts clients and outcomes, which is 

counter production to the purpose and intent of the program.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

More timely and complete responses. Connecting us with other agencies that have successfully 

mastered specific issues. Providing data that helps us understand the why behind the numbers so we 

can make improvements.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 655

Quicker turnaround and clear guidance on fiscal mandates

Some of the TA isn't performed by ED staff, so I rated it based on whether we do get TA from ED staff. 

We primarily receive TA from the RSA-funded TAC. That is valuable to us. RSA TA would be more 

helpful if provided more timely.

All of my TA is provided by TAC staff. Very little from RSA staff

Peer to peer best practices are not often shared with our agency except through WINTAC. I believe 

additional RSA staff resources would be required to make that a more robust process and result.

Recognize and celebrate the diversity of state programs meeting their unique local needs within the 

confines of the regulations, and assist in creative problem solving to achieve valid goals of the local VR 

agency and assist in locating the flexibilities that exist within the law and regulations. Actively celebrate 

and support the middle name of WIOA: Innovation and Opportunity.

None that I can think of at this time.

A whole new system is needed. A paradigm shift needs to happen. The system has failed and has failed 

badly. The percentage of people with disabilities who are not in the Laborforce is a national crisis.

Lots of money is spent on TA and TA grant contracts and the majority of that work is gathering promising 

practices from states and then sharing that information. The TA often times is assistance in interpreting 

what a regulation means and what needs to occur to be compliant because there is much confusion in 

how to actually read the regulations.

Make it less technical and more practical. Should not be one fit all.

Most TA sites and staff provide great resources and assistance to programs. It is sometimes challenging 

to find assistance to very unique issues that might come up in States and this is probably not an area that 

can be assisted through TA

Provide responses in a more timely manner

The current RSA state liaison for South Dakota has been great. [REDACTED] is always responsive and 

professional.

timely with sufficient detail

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

No sure.

RSA TAC - WINTAC

WINTAC
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 656

WINTAC

WINTAC

WINTAC

WINTAC

WINTAC - UMass/ICI

WINTAC YTAC NTAC

WINTAC, ICI.

Workforce Innovation and Technical Assistance Center (WINTAC), San Diego State University.

What is your job role?

Policy/Planning Manager

program manager

Supervisory

School Climate Transformation Grants (LEAs) program

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Please improve the log on and finding how to upload reports.

I did a quick search for our school climate grant and it shows the 2018 awards, not the current awards.

Fewer clicks to get to the content users need. Multiple entry points to resources

I did go into the safe schools TA link and it was not able to be reached. Of course, it could be on my end 

but I was able to access the other links. Otherwise, a great site.

Some of the materials seemed to be a bit dated.

no suggestions
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 657

When using the search function on the US Ed website I often struggle to find contacts and other program 

staff.

I can't think of anything at this time.

I haven't really used the website so I do not feel I can provide any improvements at this time.

There was conflicting information given by the G5 technical group as compared to what was 

communicated by consultants on webinars. For example, I was told by the technical group that the APR 

was not due until 10/30 when it was due on 10/15. If I did not participate in the webinar, this would have 

been a problem. Also, it would help if the website could accommodate PDF uploads for all section 

versus having to cut-and-paste.

It's fine at the present time.

Make more user friendly

I have not used the OESE website.

nothing at this time.

A webinar to go over how to access ,navigate and easily improve the answers you are looking for.

N/A

I don't have any suggestions

The website is already clear and concise. I have no problems with using the website.

I have never even heard of this website before now...

make it more user-friendly.

The website has a lot of information. It is well organized.

I only felt that searching for information was a bit cumbersome. I often found it difficult to find information 

specific to our program/questions.

I have never visited the website.

Provide more sample forms for addressing PBIS

How grant reporting process could be improved?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 658

Improved clarification on every step, down to the technicalities of the cover sheet, as we had many 

questions in doing so and were apprehensive about completing correctly, despite the webinar and 

guiding document which were still very confusing.

Simplify . A tab for reports and make it a check list.

All reporting documents are received in Word. If you use a Google platform for everything, Word 

documents sometimes do not configure into Google correctly. It would be helpful if the reports were sent 

our in Word and Google formats.

I'm not sure why the mid-term reports are required. This is something new and the added work is 

tedious. I understand the need to do mid-term checks, but it is the same as a full annual report. It needs 

to be cut back on the requirements. A mid-year budget update seems reasonable but the full reporting is 

time consuming.

Post the forms in a more timely manner.

More timely guidance - other than the January meeting in D.C., the guidance or the TA events are too 

close to deadlines or come far later than expected. Likely impacted by COVID, but hopeful that following 

years provide more timely support for grant reporting.

Due to COVID-19, the reporting of the IPR was done via email. The APR will be done via G5, but isn't 

due until 10/15; therefore, I can't respond to the G5 process just yet.

no suggestions

G5 is confusing and difficult to use. I would prefer to just email my report as a PDF.

I would love if the G5 system allowed us to paste tables from Word docs as we input measure-specific 

information.

Offer technical assistance for completing the grant report. These sessions would have the most impact 

when offered as stand alone session rather than being offered in conjunction professional learning with 

the PBIS center. Also, grant sessions by states/regions and/or program delivery type would be helpful.

The webinars offer little to no background information---just dive right in. If you are new to the grant, a lot 

of the vocabulary is unknown....felt very lost

We have not had to submit the report via G5 yet so I am interested in seeing how that process works.

The Annual Performance Report will be my first to submit on the G5 so I am unsure until I complete the 

report how the system actually works. Can provide more feedback at a later date once I have submitted 

the first APR.

Please improve the ease of the G5 platform including allowing more than two people to enter the IPR and 

APR data. Our consultant has been outstanding, [REDACTED].

I have no issues with it.

Eliminate G5 it is very difficult to read and understand what and how to complete reports.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 659

Submitting reports via email or portal is much easier than through the G5 site.

nothing at this time.

We are fortunate that our Project Director is knowledgeable and resourceful .

Provide Quarterly meetings to respond to grantee questions and so that we can collaborate with other 

grantees.

No suggestions

We receive excellent support from [REDACTED] at the USDOE.

I would have been helpful to have the IPR approved earlier for planning purposes. We submitted midJune and heard back in September.

I've only ever submitted via email so we will see how it goes through G5.

More advanced notice of the requirements template to follow

The grant reporting process would be much improved if there was the ability to add charts within the 

GPRA measure narrative.

This was unavoidable - but we struggled with how to report information due to COVID-19. We were in 

year one of the grant and it had a significant impact on our ability to carry out several of our programs. 

Reporting information regarding partially used programs or those we were unable to start was difficult.

Video or PDF explaining the steps and submission process.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

Our Fed officer is awesome. We are always supported .

Greater structure and proactive planning, not waiting for grantees to ask/request help.

I would love to see a series of webinars related to working with external evaluators.

no suggestions. I have been very satisfied

A regular community of practice established for grant leads would provide an opportunity for TA as well 

as a platform to discuss areas of success and opportunities for growth.

Five different emails and phone calls to the EDSCLS Help Desk went UNANSWERED! I have never 

been put in touch with other grant award winners for the peer component.

I can't think of anything at this time.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 660

I would like to see more opportunities provided for us to meet more often with those in our state who 

have been awarded the SCTG. I enjoyed getting to meet with them and discuss celebrations and barriers 

at our last SCTG meeting in a Breakout Session. Getting to brainstorm with them really put my worries at 

ease.

If technical staff refers to the program consultant and not the technology staff, then [REDACTED] was 

outstanding!

It's fine at the present time.

More examples of good grant implementation

N/A

nothing at this time.

Our assigned Program Director is always available to Problem Solve and guide us in meeting the Grant 

Goals and deliverables. I respect her guidance and her ability to positively think strategically .

Please make sure all grantees are receiving TA information because I have not been offered these 

options as project director.

Suggestions have I none

They are very helpful when I call. I have been very impressed with the leadership at the USDOE. 

[REDACTED] is very helpful.

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

Center for Access Success and Equity

EIR grant

Midwest PBIS

NW Regional Lab MHTC PBIS centers around the nation Universities

PBIC National TAC

PBIS - Florida

PBIS Center

PBIS National Center Mississippi representative
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 661

PBIS Tech Assistance Center

REMSTA

[REDACTED]

TA Center on PBIS

Youth for Youth: Online Professional Learning and Technical Assistance for 21st Century Community 

Learning Centers Regional Labs

What is your job role?

Project Lead

Supervisor of Guidance

School Climate Transformation Grants (SEAs) program

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Since we are in our no-cost extension year, I haven't used the website.

No suggestions

I have not accessed resources on the website.

It would be great if it was more user friendly and easier to navigate.

I don't have any suggestions.

How grant reporting process could be improved?

I'm not sure I know how our data is used.

Due dates could be altered. Having the annual report due 15 days after the end of the reporting period 

does not allow enough time for the state finance department to provide the required information on the 

report.

Earlier access to the reporting package in G5. Clear and consistent deadlines. Availability of ED staff to 

answer question. PD should be able to add users to G5 (e.g. evaluators) to assist in completing report, 

without giving them authority to submit.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 662

Provide fillable forms that can then be uploaded

The G5 system is not easy to navigate. The system is down or doesn't work properly. It would be better if 

the G5 system would allow upload of pdf documents, instead of hand entering the ED524 forms. That 

takes a lot of time.

Sometimes grant reports are due before the end of the program year and it makes it difficult to calculate 

accurate results.

Actually, it has improved a great deal since 2015

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

No suggestions

Department staff provides very limited technical assistance. Yearly overview of reporting requirements.

[REDACTED] does a great job! She is quick to respond and eager to help out!

No suggestions

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

Center on PBIS

[REDACTED], PBIS Technical Assistance Center.

National PBIS Center

PBIS

PBIS TA Center

PBIS TA Center

PBIS TA Center NCEO

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

SCTG SEA - 2020 - Q58.4. What specific type of technical assistance content would be 

most useful to you in the successful completion of your grant(s)?

Please select up to 3 options from the list below:
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 663

We were very disappointed in the lack of regular communication by our assigned TA Center (not 

the US DE office). It would have been great to have more individualized TA and not have to pay 

additionally for it.

Statewide Family Engagement Centers (SFEC) program

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I have no suggestions. I just need to remember to refer to and to use more effectively.

The website could link to the grantees' sites and offer descriptions of the programs offered by the 

grantees.

Improve the ability to locate and navigate the site.

One recommendation is to use an accessibility checker to fix any minor accessibility page errors, e.g., 

some very low contrasts on your webpages.

I have not used this resource enough to comment

How grant reporting process could be improved?

In the past we did not need to go through G5 and that seemed to make the process easier.

The reporting process could be updated to an online entry system. We did see an example of a system 

like this for our grant, but the evaluators who created the items in the system asked for data unrelated to 

the objectives of the grant, many questions beyond the project status charts and program measures, and 

removed the important executive summary.

Not sure

Continue to provide updates on the new SFEC reporting requirements.

We feel the GPRAs could be adjusted to better capture the full impact of our work. We leave a lot of 

valuable information on the table that is only captured through our performance measures. This 

especially includes our impact with school level staff and CBOs.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

Technical Assistance has been provided by AIR and Manhattan Strategies group. We have received 

infrequent, brief phone calls with this group and they have provided little support to us. Our federal 

project officer, [REDACTED], is a wonderful support. She answers emails quickly, provides sounds 

guidance, and helpful information. Her support has been invaluable to us.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 664

My program officer is excellent.

We rated the last set of TA questions as not applicable because SFEC grant has MSG group/AIR provide 

TA to SFEC grantees. We are satisfied with the TA that Department staff currently provide to us in term 

of resources sharing etc.

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

(1) Equity Assistance Centers (2) Regional laboratories (3) Comprehensive Center

Mahattan Strategy Group and AIR.

Question about funding

R6 Comprehensive Center (UNC - SERVE) Equity Assistance Center (Covering SC region)

Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) 

program 

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I think the website is fine, I have never had any issue finding what I needed.

The department could improve by providing specific information and training about completing required 

reports. Also, provide site visits with campus community and administrators.

Include FAQ from recent interactions with users. Post actual due dates instead of stating that dates 

change annually. Maybe list information in everyday terms instead of legal terms. Add more resources. 

Include links to the most frequently used forms (downloadable current versions).

The ability to go straight to the source (legislation, regulation) when seeking answers to questions about 

legislatively allowable activities (LAAs).

Make it easier to find information. Each Grant Program should have its own page with information 

specific to that Grant. However, general information (regulations, etc.) can be accessible to all from one 

general site.

N/A

Highlight or share effective practices/strategies/activities under each Legislative Allowable Activity.

None at this time.

No recommendations at this time
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 665

Good as it is

It is good as it is.

The site needs to be self explanatory regarding the information we are looking for.

Use a more user-friendly platform that is easy to navigate and locate information on.

Additional information about specifics related to Title III B and Title III F grants. The information provided 

is useful, but it would be helpful if there was more of it.

N/A

Some of the information is not up-to-date or not easily found.

The site could be a little more user friendly for new users it can be intimidating.

How grant reporting process could be improved?

I am not sure, it is much better than it use to be. I thankful that they made it much easier to work with.

Training, training and training from the funding agency.

Make sure that the information requested is valid for the grant (Part B, Part F, HBGI). Give more clarity 

on expenses. Are we reporting only on what has been drawn down in G5 although our records show 

funds that have been encumbered or spent but not yet drawn down? Give specific instructions on how to 

calculate what you want so it won't look as though funds are not being spent in a timely manner.

Improve the tool and have it tested by the users.

Increase the time given to complete applications.

N/A

N/A

Allow data to pre-populate from previous submission.

Sometimes the data entry fields are not clear. Especially with date formats.

It's good

Understandably, there will be questions that are needed to provide data for Congress but most of our 

grant's objectives are specific to the needs of our institution. Some achievements cannot be measured in 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 666

a numerical way. Cannot show an increase/improvement with ever-changing cohorts of students in the 

tutoring programs. .

By enhancing the services provided by the Help Desk so that the instructions are clearer when navigating 

the system.

Streamline the questions.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

I think they have done an excellent job in keeping us updated and providing relevant information.

Individual technical assistance meetings with program directors and administrators.

Any assistance requested takes up to 30 days to receive. Sometimes that assistance is needed 

immediately and all things can't be planned 30 days in advance to get a response in time. Could there be 

an email or phone number for 'general' assistance and if our question requires a Program Officer, it will 

be passed on and hopefully get a response before the 30 day time period?

N/A

Provide short videos or Web links that can easily be accessed by patrons.

N/A

N/A

Consider including a Live Chat option

Provide more clarification on supplanting and examples to share with the participants

It's good

Given the circumstances, I think they are doing a good job.

By enhancing the training for the staff so that they are more knowledgeable in providing assistance we 

need.

It would have been helpful to me to have a new Director's technical assistance workshop (s).

Mrs. Wendy Lawrence was excellent and responded quickly.

Additional staffing to help reduce workloads so responses could be completed sooner.

They need time to respond to request that require written responses. Don't know if that can be fixed.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 667

What is your job role?

Director of program

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

HBCU - 2020 - Q23.2. How can HBCU improve the usefulness of the technical assistance 

you receive?

Individual technical assistance/site visits.

Any assistance requested takes up to 30 days (or longer).

N/A

Record workshops and presentations and make them accessible as needed.

N/A

Provide it frequently. Maybe have individual focus sessions on each Legislative Allowable 

Activity.

Shorter response time from program officials.

No recommendations at this time

It's good

Respond to requests in a timely manner.

By enhancing the software application for completing the APR and giving us the opportunity to 

pretest the software before it is released for use.

Clearer guidance when possible

HBCU - 2020 - Q23.5. What can the HBCU do to improve communication with you?

Quicker responses.

Continue to communicate with institutions and provide technical assistance.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 668

Answer the phone or respond to emails at least to say the email was received. We send an 

email or leave a voice mail and wait 30 days before following up and then we usually have to 

wait additional days for a response after the follow up. A monthly or quarterly email would be 

helpful to update us on what's going on, any new requirements and reminders for upcoming due 

dates.

N/A

Communicate more often.

N/A

N/A

No additional comments at this time.

No recommendation at this time

It's good

Respond in a timely manner.

By making it more timely.

Check in maybe quarterly to see how things are going or see if any assistance is needed.

Provide more time to submit reports.

HBCU - 2020 - Q23.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your 

program specialist?

Both email and telephone

HBCU - 2020 - Q23.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process and 

protocols associated with this grant competition?

Continue to have good communication and interaction with program officers.

Continued communication and training for new directors would improve the overall processes 

and protocols.

I have no experience with the competitive grant process at this time.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 669

In the case of competition, have similar institutions compete with each other. HBCUs are not a 

monolith. HBCUs with enrollment between 100-500 students or 500-1000 students do not have 

the same capacities as HBCUs with higher enrollment numbers and more degree program 

offerings. Make the competition a tiered process with opportunities to subcontract, collaborate, 

or form consortia in order to give all interested HBCUs with the necessary capacity and 

capabilities access and opportunity.

Make it easier to submit applications. Increase time between initial grant announcement and 

due date of grant.

N/A

N/A

No additional comments at this time.

No recommendation at this time

No suggestions

Revise the application guidelines to remove redundancy and ambiguous instructions.

There is the need for annual consistency on the application process and reporting.

Very clear instructions, streamlining the reporting process, new Director workshops

Strengthening Institutions Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

More categorization of information.

information is often not up to date; old versions are still available which causes confusion

Clear and consistent answers.

I do not often reference the website, but from my perspective, it would be better to have two separate 

places for Title III to communicate to two different audiences. Currently, it seems that that single site is 

trying to both serve to inform potential applicants and current awardees, and our information needs are 

vastly different. I authored our grant proposal and at the time I was engaged in that work, I needed 

guidance about potential competition dates, pre-application workshops, and who I might connect with to 

answer questions about the application process. In my Project Director role, I need guidance about 

annual reports, budget revisions, drawdowns, etc. The current website doesn't do a robust job of serving 

either of those scenarios.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 670

It is a bit visually unappealing and maybe for some of the more technical language maybe 'decoding' the 

language would be helpful.

Providing a newsletter directed to SIP grantees, and providing networking opportunities for institutions 

working under the SIP/Title III grant. Perhaps monthly or quarterly conference calls or webinars.

Provide updated information on grant announcements, awards, etc. as well as include PPTs for 

presentations on the website.

The look and feel seems outdated. I wonder if it's adaptive technology friendly.

Content is sometime vague. More specific information would be helpful to both first and repeat 

applicants.

It's not always intuitive where to find what you need. Maybe a quick start guide to help new grantees.

Add a tutorial on how to navigate or a you tube video on the web site features.

Information on the website is non-specific, it is difficult to navigate to find anything specific and every time 

I go there for information I feel like I am going in circles without getting anywhere. Yet, the staff sends us 

there all the time to review the guidance without providing any back up support, so I always find myself 

there already frustrated and it gets worse.

I've found it perfectly fine the way it is.

Simplify it

Adding a contact to phone/email if there are additional questions.

Some of the links are embedded within pages making them difficult to locate at times. The site is 

generally user friendly but could use improvements in that area.

I would love to see more user guides, up to date information, powerpoints with key facts and dates.

NA

No improvement needed

No specific suggestions.

I have not had to use the website as a resource. I have always been able to have direct communication 

with personnel to answer questions.

There is a lot of information and I imagine it is difficult to categorize...so I am uncertain how to make the 

site better. I believe the department is doing the best they can with all the resources they have to house.

it has improved over the life of our grant. Text is becoming clearer.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 671

Regular updates to information, especially dates and guidance on upcoming grant opportunities.

Very text heavy. Could be more visual. Consider using a short form feature to target specific pages 

based on need of visitor.

Perhaps easier navigation to lead those viewing the website to the resources/information that they are 

looking for.

Keep content up to date-too much old stuff.

The instructions for the interim report did not match the form and it was a bit confusing.

The search function needs improvement. Updates to the site are not timely. FAQs for SIP grants would 

be appreciated.

Works for me.

It's okay for now.

Clarity of the final report data requests. It was not clear how to interpret some questions.

Information is frequently outdated and new programs can be difficult to find. Also, it would be helpful to 

have links to other informative sites rather than limited or circular references.

There is just a lot of information to review on the site, although it is always helpful.

Have a more defined Help section or have a chat function.

I would love to see more robust FAQs for grant directing, as many of the FAQs and resources on the 

website seemed aimed at those applying for funds rather than at those directing grants already awarded.

It is overall OK - just a very large department with many different initiatives.

it's not intuitive and is text heavy. Icons and pictures could break the monotony and make it easier to 

navigate.

The pull down menu options on the G5 site are not intuitive. Having a one or two click option to run 

drawdown reports would be helpful.

ensure info up to date

Website formatting - text doesn't match some of the formatting (boxes, pages, etc). Can be a bit difficult 

to navigate.

Knowing Security is a prime concern, making smoother (less difficult) entry into the site would be great.

I feel the website is fairly easy to navigate.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 672

More focus on common (not procedural or official) language; more FAQ-type resources. The CFR is 

really hard to navigate and understand when looking for specific pieces of information, unless one knows 

the language. I tend to go to websites of other universities which provide dos and don'ts, and some 

basics on procedures and policies related to Title III grants.

No specific suggestions.

Realize that not all users are familiar with vocabulary, thus a glossary of terms would be helpful.

I think my mild dissatisfaction was just because I needed some very specific information that I wasn't able 

to find. I got it by asking a question of a person.

Giving concrete examples of where the cost regulations would apply

Modernize the design

Simplify the information architecture.

How grant reporting process could be improved?

Most of my issues have been technical.

There are very few instructions available and they are not detailed enough or specific enough to provide 

real clarity about what information is required; specifically related to baselines and current status 

numbers for performance measures and objectives. Very confusing and results in a lot of back and forth 

with program officer that could be avoided if instructions were more detailed and clear.

Certain required information areas (Focus Areas) are not pertinent to our grant and are not directly 

affected by our grant activities. Allowing a 'Not Applicable' with reasoning would streamline the process.

I would appreciate having clarity about whether each year I will be required to report the very same 

things, etc., and what the will be. When we received our award notification it indicated THAT we would 

be reporting annually, but to the best of my recollection not WHAT we would be reporting annually. I 

believe it would be helpful a single website / webpage for awardees that included - among other things 

pertinent to awardees - a sample report, as well as guidance about whether this report would be identical 

for all five years of the grant. Since we can't see the questions until the report opens up, it's difficult to 

do preliminary work. We just finished our second year, so I know what we were asked in year one. Given 

that for year one - and now year two - the reporting software was not made available on October first as 

our initial grant documents said to anticipate, and since we're not at least provided a Word or PDF doc 

showing the questions we'll see in the reporting software, I'm in a bit of a holding pattern right now. 

Would appreciate knowing what information I should be gathering in the meantime. The same as last 

year? Or not? I believe there may be a sample report on the Title III webpages, but when I referenced it 

last year it had questions about things such as how many wired classrooms we have that were outdated 

and not asked of us. I believe it was a copy of the version from about fifteen years ago or so.

There were a few areas that I had to guess about for the report, so maybe just more info in each 

category. I did eventually figure it out after I read through it enough times.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 673

The new APR system should resolve the challenges. I am not clear yet if we have to submit an interim 

report.

Some of the quantitative data elements are difficult to reply to based upon how an actual objective was 

written.

There seem to be problems with the APR system every year that affect the reporting dates. Is it 

necessary to change the system every year?

Last year's website improvements were fantastic. I wish some of the questions were more flexible - if a 

specific grant does not include a specific outcome, but its built into the report, adapting the response to 

hard-coded requirements is frustrating.

Keep the process consistent over the five years of the grant.

I am never sure of the timeline until the date is set and it seems to vary.

Conference call about the reporting process is satisfactory. However, it would be helpful to go over each 

section and explain the purpose and what the Dept. of Education is looking for.

It is insane that we are required to carry out all grant accounting in two entirely different ways. This is 

duplication of effort for little value. At the very least, grantees should be warned when they are awarded 

to track their activities so they don't have to go back at the end of their first year and redo all the 

accounting that they originally did according to how they wrote their proposal in the 8 or 9 categories in 

the grant application. Many of the questions for which I must write long answers are vague and difficult to 

answer and only address our grant with a glancing blow so neither we nor the department of ed gets 

anything that is actually valuable from our answers. And I am usually a person that finds reflection and 

reporting to be a valuable activity and an essential part of accountability. But since I spend so much time 

redoing accounting and writing answer that are almost irrelevant, I don't get much insight or share much 

insight.

I think it is self-explanatory and smooth the way it is.

The improvements over the last 2 years have made it easier to complete the report. I have no 

suggestions at this time. Thank you for continuing to look for ways to improve the process.

Explain how the data is used.

Some of the directions were vague. More direction clarity could improve the process.

I am unsure as I have not yet submitted end of the year reports.

One thing is if you could let us know way in advance when the APR will open and when the due dates 

are. It would also be helpful to have a session in advance for questions.

NA

No improvement needed
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 674

There is value in having the submission format more clearly represented in the 'worksheet' that is 

downloadable. I expected to see a similar window and had to 'discover' how to create additional 

reporting areas.

The grant reporting process is fairly straightforward. The budget reporting portion differs a little from the 

budget line items records (i.e. differentiating the management salary and fringe from the total personnel 

line item).

The form needs to change. It is very hard to enter information - it does not print out correctly and some of 

the questions literally do not apply and might not apply to any program. The financial section is hardest to 

complete. This needs to be made easier or something.

NA

Newest reporting system is more user-friendly

We are required to report on activities which were not part of our proposal - such as institutional 

management, enrollment, library holdings, etc. We should be able to say 'not applicable,' since if they 

have increased, it was not the result of our grant. Also, the timing doesn't work well for a college - the 

portal opens right around the time that faculty are leaving for Christmas break and the campus is shutting 

down, so while we are allowed three months to write the report, it's really only two months.

no comment. I am a new program director to a grant in its first year

More direct communication about report expectations and timeline. It would be very helpful to have the 

reporting template months in advance to allow for proper data collection and reporting.

We need to have the workshop that was cancelled due to COVID. I would have been able to get the 

individualized informaiton if there was some type of training or comprehensive workshop for Project 

Directors.

Have APR report templates available by June 30th

I have only completed the interim report and have not yet done the annual report. The interim report did 

not seem to match the instructions so it was a bit confusing.

The grant reporting process was inconsistent - times changed, reporting site changed, and 

communication about changes and timelines was for the most part very slow and not at all helpful. The 

new site didn't work in some places. The report itself changed as well, and while change isn't inherently a 

bad thing, I'd say that the change management of reporting was poor.

Last year there wasn't specific guidance to go with each section like there had been the year before. I 

was grateful I had saved the responses. I don't think there was the same level of help desk available 

when questions came up.

The technical assistance manual needs updating to the most current online format, needs to include 

screenshots and examples, and better explanation of why things are asked and how they will be used. 

Webinars and technical support is also needed.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 675

Clarity in the types of data requested and use of data by Department of Ed. Questions are not program 

specific and it was difficult at times to determine how to respond for our grant project. Reporting by 

budget categories for specific activities was difficult for our grant project.

More transparency about how the information is compiled and how it is used.

There could be consistency from one year to the next. Changing the questions and data needed for the 

APR from one year to the next is troublesome

On the sections reporting data, some outcomes are not numerical so it is hard to report on those items.

At the end of the grant year, allow us to see what we need to gather for the report, so that everything is 

ready prior to the opening of the APR site.

I would appreciate more communication throughout the year--especially for new award recipients--

regarding reporting requirements and expectations.

The instructions for the interim report aren't clear (they are written for the annual report) and didn't align

with the form itself. It was extremely difficult to get a response when we found out (after we tried to 

submit) that our grant director couldn't sign off on the report but we couldn't access to the electronic form 

for the person who did need to sign off on it. Though our report was completed well before the original 

deadline, we still submitted late because of the lack of response. It was very stressful.

The grant report was released later than expected and I questions took a long time to be answered.

Make online forms more user friendly. Allow for including decimals in metrics. Clarify how Focus Area 

Outputs relate to our project. Allow us to enter percentages rather than requiring raw numbers. Most of 

our goals were set as percentages, and I ended up just converting them to XXX/1000, so 38.5% became 

385/1000 and then the system converted it back to a percentage but dropped the decimal.

Strengthening Institutions is particularly challenging because the activities are very individualized. The 

report tries to accommodate for this but it is clunky. Also, the narrative questions are repetitive and 

responses may not change from year to year.

That electronic form forces you into reporting on issues/items that may not be as important to your 

specific project. Sometimes, filling it out seems to be like fitting a square peg in a round hole.

Last year the APR portal went under major redesign which caused delays in reporting. Parts of the site 

came online over several weeks. Reporting under different budget categories (LAAs) vs. what was 

written in the grant was time consuming and confusing.

make clearer when reporting period opens; make passwords less complicated

We were told there would be training on the new APR system released in January, but never received 

any additional information.

Be more specific as to opening and closing dates with advanced notice.

I feel like more opportunity to explain ALL the grant is doing to assist students. The word limit makes it 

impossible to provide anything other than the hard data. They is not much opportunity for narrative.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 676

I have only done an Interim Report - I may be better able to answer next year

I think more written examples of things on the site would be helpful.

I've completed 5 reports (including the first half-year one) now and I am getting ready for the last one. So 

far, they seemed pretty logical and straight forward to me. The options of 'other' offer the flexibility in the 

measures if those measures are framed differently than proposed in the framework of the report. The 

system seems to be reliable and easy to navigate. The text boxes are fine, but it is hard to edit 

sometimes and the formatting gets messy in the PDF. However, that's understandable. I really don't 

have anything to complain about about the reporting system. As far as the process goes, it's pretty 

straight forward. The only unknown variables are the submission dates and outcomes. I know that the 

APRs are generally due sometime between January or March, but they were also due as late as July. I 

appreciated when we had at least 90 days from when the system opens. Many of us, Grant Directors, 

wear multiple hats, especially if we work at small, liberal arts schools. We depend on many other 

components of the institution, equally overburdened, to get the data and never work ahead because of 

the million other things we're already behind on. So, when we get 60 days from when the system opens 

to submission, it creates a lot of stress. Similarly, it would be nice to hear directly about the 

approvals of the APRs, rather than wait for the legislative approval of the budget and the GAN notification 

only. Overall, we don't know when and how those APRs are evaluated and approved, and how that data 

we provide is used in the meta-level of SIP or Title III. I love assessment in general and the guidance it 

offers on individual, institutional, and meta-levels, and would love to see how those three levels fit 

together. Thank you very much!

Make a reporting template of required questions available ahead of time rather than grantees having to 

wait until the portal is open to determine the types and format of questions asked. This would be 

especially helpful to new grantees.

Perhaps opportunity to submit additional qualitative data.

Provide a static document containing all the questions in addition to the web-based form.

Simplify. 1. what priorities were the focus for this year? 2. how did you spend grant funds to achieve 

those priorities? 3. how effective were you in achieving those priorities? 4. were there unexpected 

issues that impacted your ability to achieve the priorities?

Sometimes there are requirements to respond to sections that really are not at all relevant to my grant -

so I wind up having to generate data that have no utility to me and they just are not meaningful. I would 

think that if a section is not relevant to the grant, it should be possible to mark it as such and not have to 

generate data to support that section. For example, my grant has no relevance to the university's 

endowment, but I'm still having to produce reports on that area.

There were a few bugs in the system at first, I think they were eventually straightened out.

Up to date report templates on the website would be extremely helpful.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

Hold the annual project directors' meeting even if it has to be a virtual conference.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 677

A regular schedule of technical assistance calls for grantee cohorts would be helpful, perhaps quarterly. 

HRSA does this and it is helpful.

More frequent emails that describe these services and invite grantees to be involved and learn. I was not 

aware that these services existed.

My Dept of Ed contact – [REDACTED] - is always responsive to my questions. I appreciate the speed 

with which [REDACTED] weighs in very much. The other examples of ways staff might be of assistance 

do not seem to be services that have been offered to me by the Dept of Ed at all. Several sound like 

things I would very much appreciate having access to, specifically: - listserv - training (webinars, 

Director meetings, conference workshops) - peer-to-peer information sharing among grantees -

consultative services (teleconferences, on-site meeting, video conferences) - toolkits or other resources 

To my knowledge these things do not exist. If they do, I would love to be informed about them as they 

would be very helpful to me.

I haven't had to use it too often. I would maybe say more feedback on our annual report.

Due to COVID19 we were not able to participate in the SIP Annual Conference and Technical 

Assistance, especially trainings have been minimal.

I have always received technical assistance information directly from the SIP program officer. This works 

quite well in understanding expectations and processes.

We have been very happy with the responsiveness of our program officer.

I'm not familiar with the availability of toolkits. A depository for templates (for example, a budget 

modification template with step-by-step instructions) would be fantastic.

Announce online workshops sooner and offer more dates.

It would have been great to have a director's meeting my first year. The one this year may have still been 

helpful though I understand why it was canceled, but it would have been even more helpful to have one a 

couple of years ago as we started.

Dept. of Ed planned a conference in April, however, it was cancelled due to Covid-19. I would like to 

have access to online training and zoom with other Title III recipients similar to my institution or with 

colleges that have more experience managing a Title III grant. I would appreciate a regular check in with 

my program officer to talk about the EDGAR handbook. I need some assistance with interpreting the 

EDGAR policies and understanding which policies apply to our Title III grant.

I have not received a single one of the things mentioned on the previous page. I have not been informed 

about them or seen information on how to access them. I would have found them to be invaluable if they 

would have actually existed.

I haven't needed much assistance, but when I have, it was easy to obtain.

None at this time. The staff are engaging, helpful, responsive, professional and friendly.

I didn't receive any input on successful implementation from my Department staff.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 678

I know there was supposed to be a conference that got cancelled due to COVID. We would love some 

online training or sessions. I literally have had no training from the department of education since I 

started in my position two years ago.

NA

Difficult to address this given the limited personnel availability issues (within Washington office) because 

of the pandemic.

In the Year 1 annual progress report I had initial trouble logging in. The technical assistance was very 

responsive, they provided the assistance I needed, and followed up with me to make sure I was able to 

log in. My experience with them was very positive.

Not sure, haven't had the occasion to use them.

Unfortunately we are in difficult times which impacts everyone. However, a 24 hour turn around with 

emails would be great. My school requires documentation on my communication with our project director 

regarding specific purchases and sometimes it can be up to a week before I get an email back, whereas 

phone calls are almost answered immediately. Emails are written documentation of approval or denial in 

various areas of the grant.

Our program officer generally is responsive to our questions, but we have received no training of any sort 

such as a conference, listserv, or the other resources listed on the previous page. It often feels like we 

are expected to know, for instance, how to submit our carryover requests and our extension request, but 

no guidance on these things was ever offered.

I am not sure if this question is applicable to our institution's award.

They tell you where to go for help and that is it. It would be nice to have a point person instead of being 

routed to a general email - especially for reoccuring problems like mine.

Get them additional help so they can focus on SIP grants, not CARES grants

I didn't know that ANY of those things listed were available. I was looking forward to finally having a 

conference but that was cancelled due to COVID with no follow-up (I discovered by looking at the 

website). I have felt totally on my own.

Actually provide the help listed! Webinars and conferences are especially needed.

na

n/a

None that I can think of.

Peer-to-peer guidance hasn't been available, nor have toolkits, etc. that would be helpful. Aside from an 

introductory PowerPoint and letters/emails distributed regarding CARES Act funding, Covid-19 updates, 

and GANs, I've received few communications from the Department staff. I recognize that we're operating 

in unusual times (during Covid-19), so perhaps things will be much improved next year.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 679

Better and more frequent communication.

My needs have been met.

N/A

No Directors meetings have been held since I received my grant in 2018.

Technical assistance was helpful, but events postponed due to COVID

Training for the Annual Performance Report especially if there are changes and upgrades.

What is your job role?

Grant Director

Project Manager

Grant PI

Exec Director, PI

Division Dean

Vice President

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

SIP - 2020 - Q15.2. How can the Strengthening Institutions Program improve the 

usefulness of the technical assistance you receive?

Hold the the project directors'conference so we can share information and meet program staff.

provide a regularly scheduled ongoing technical assistance format

Hire more staff for faster replies to questions and requests.

I am a project director, and would differentiate between the official notification information 

packet I received and the assistance that has been available to me. The notification information 

was cumbersome for me to wade through, and often referenced regulations that I had to go 

elsewhere to find... and I was not always confident that what I had found was correct. It would 

have been extremely helpful - and comforting - to have launched with a welcome workshop 

during which Dept of Ed staff walked new awardees through the expectations and then provided 

Q & A time for grantees. I sometimes feel like I'm flying blind and that there may be important 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 680

things I should be doing that I'm not aware of and don't even know to ask about. My program 

director is extremely responsive when I do ask questions about things I know I need help with.

I think only in a bit more quickly in responding, but everything is always helpful when I get 

answers.

Providing introduction training sessions on APR criteria and expectations.

My program officer, [REDACTED], has been wonderful in providing guidance in our first year of 

our project.

Maybe host a virtual SIP conference to replace the cancelled conference?

I cannot think of a concrete example at this time.

I can't think of any.

My Program Officer is knowledgeable, professional and friendly. I like working with 

[REDACTED]. But, I am concerned the Dept. Of Ed is pulling [REDACTED] in too many 

directions that is causing a slow response time. I cannot make any suggestions to you because 

this is an internal issue at the Dept. of Ed. Post Secondary Office.

The program director with whom I interacted almost never responded to any form of 

communication that I used. I believe I received 5 replies to messages in 5 years. Most of the 

time it took the maximum amount of time for the replies to be offered if one was required before 

I could proceed. Most of the time I had a difficult time understanding what was meant in the 

written reply - I had to guess about words and grammar. Sometimes I had to provide the ED 

guidance documents I had read as evidence why I believed I could do something. I would have 

valued having a partner to make the program work the way ED wants it to work and support our 

institution.

Just keep doing what they're doing.

I am happy with the assistance from SIP staff.

Queries are often not answered at all, and if they are answered the answers come late. 

Additionally, requested documents or information is sent, but action is not taken in a timely 

fashion. In a few words, improved response time and more consistent follow-through would help 

immensely.

n/a

It can improve by being more available and having detailed, time appropriate responses.

NA

I suspect a return to office access will address much of my concerns.

There are no noted improvements needed to the usefulness of technical assistance.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 681

Have not reached out to anyone for technical assistance other than our program officer so none 

of these questions are applicable.

Difficult times impact service. Nothing can be improved at this time. I imagine if we were in 

'normal' times, the service would be above par.

Timely response.

Offer more opportunities to conference about issues/questions/concerns. Email communication 

is easily misinterpreted, especially with technical details, and can lead to lengthy delays in 

obtaining critical information. It would be great if program officers had open hours when 

grantees could sign up for conferences,

No feedback at this time. Our inquiries to our program officer is almost always about our budget 

award and our questions concern requests for amending the budget to better serve the needs of 

our students. To date, we have had only positive experiences with our program officer.

Program officers appear to be overwhelmed with communications, and sometimes take quite 

some time to get back to you or don't get back to you. Our program officer for this grant, 

[REDACTED], was very responsive and helpful and usually responded quickly to questions or 

requests for approvals. I appreciate [REDACTED] enormously.

Communication of technical assistance that is available would be helpful. I took on the role of 

grant director 1/2 way through with no guidance from SIP and very little from my program officer.

NA - none needed

Allowing 30 days to respond to prior approval requests is not helpful.

Consistency in response. One activity was initially approved and then over a year later was not 

allowed and we had to refund the dollars already spent.

Faster response to emails

I think the staff are responsive but the program needs to be updated.

My program officer, [REDACTED], is wonderful

None that I can think of.

Our program officer is extremely busy and stretched too thin on too many grants and projects.

The cancellation of the meeting (Technical Assistance Workshop) was pretty devastating for 

me, though I know it was unavoidable due to Covid-19. I had so much to learn, though, and I 

was counting on that meeting to help me figure out my footing on this grant.

We hired a grant director 7 months ago. Still not recognized by the DE as the official director so 

all communication is flowing through other channels. Still no response to our request to modify 

the grant due to COVID-19 (submitted two months ago).
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 682

When asking for a change to our program, it takes a very long time to receive a response.

SIP - 2020 - Q15.5. What can the Strengthening Institutions Program do to improve 

communication with you?

More information regarding other funded projects and their successes/failures as well as project 

strengths/weaknesses.

be more proactive with communication, especially in response to COVID changes

Again, hire more staff to answer questions and requests.

My program officer rarely reaches out to me independently of my reaching out to ask 

[REDACTED] questions. I assume this is because there isn't really much to communicate. It 

would be nice if it became standard operating procedure to send 'heads up' notices about things 

such as reporting. I rated the notification about receipt of awards poorly. It should be noted that 

my response related to our initial notification, which came at the very end of September when 

we were a month into an academic year, which posed difficulties for hiring, etc. I recognize that 

the Depts hands are sometimes tied because congressional approval is needed before those 

awards can be made. I did not take into account notifications for continued funding. My 

presumption has been that we could automatically presume that our funding would continue 

barring any major problems, and if issues existed about which we should be concerned that we 

would be aware of them.

I just think our rep may be a bit overloaded so sometimes emails take a bit of time to get 

answered, but she is always very helpful.

Providing monthly or quarterly newsletter and networking/connection opportunities with other 

grantees.

Nothing I can think of currently as [REDACTED] does a very nice job of maintaining appropriate 

levels of communication

Publish a monthly digest of changes and updates and reminders.

No improvement needed.

Host a quarterly check-in with Program Officer; monthly e-newsletter with tips, notices, etc.

Information is communicated poorly and infrequently

It is already good.

Have examples of successful grants to review.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 683

More communication generally. The technical support meeting was canceled due to COVID, 

and so far as I'm aware, no alternative or supplemental content or resources were offered to 

replace it.

I could have used a virtual Program Directors' meeting (in light of the pandemic) rather than just 

cancelling it altogether.

n/a

We hear many things happening at the Department of Education on the news and have no idea 

how it affects us. We also have no idea what the Department of Education does with our 

reports.

NA

No noted concerns. The notification to the next year's funding was a little late this year, but I 

realize everything related to the 2020-2021 year is unusual due to the added pressures and 

requirements related to the coronavirus protocols. Because I had not received notification of the 

next year's funding by early September I had informed campus administration that we might 

have to make alternative plans for personnel paid under the grant. We did receive our next 

year's funding notice on September 16, 2020.

Communciate.

For the most part, I get important and relatable communications regarding the program, 

however, it is a bit more difficult to access the program director at times because of COVID19.

Award notice seemed late this year.

Consider more frequent updates - even if there is no specific change or adjustment. We often 

hear nothing for extended periods of time, which can be nervewracking. I would suggest 

proactive check-ins at steady increments - or even a regular newsletter with advice and best 

practices at key grant intervals.

I have been the Program Director since late July. I have not received any information from the 

SIP program directly.

I have no feedback about improving communication at this time other than what was expressed 

earlier about grant reporting re: expectations and deadlines.

I would like more one on one assistance one a quarter or the opportunity to discuss grant 

progress with other institutions around and our point of contact one a quater.

Increase number of communications even if just to see how things are going.

My program officer, [REDACTED], is an excellent communicator.

Overall, I'd say communication was fine. Communication around COVID was slow and not very 

helpful for a while - probably because no one else quite knew how to handle things, either. :) In 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 684

general, I received announcements and communications about important topics at a reasonable 

rate.

Proactive communication about resources would be useful. Responsiveness.

Respond to questions in a timely manner. Often we will ask several questions but the response 

will only answer one of the questions.

SIP - 2020 - Q15.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your 

program specialist?

Email when I have questions, but would appreciate Webinars to provide guidance from the Dept 

of Ed and my specialist.

I don\'t understand - my program specialist does not communicate so how can I have a 

preference

SIP - 2020 - Q15.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process and protocols 

associated with this grant competition?

A better and clearer understanding of the process and scoring for the Competitive Preference 

Priority section.

a forecast of upcoming anticipated timeline of the competition is helpful, one that is actually 

accurate and to which the Department adheres

An earlier deadline and rapid processing might help by providing awardees earlier notice so that 

they may begin setting up their project well before the October 1st performance period start 

date.

Applying for a Title III SIP grant requires a tremendous amount of work. Once you've had one, 

you understand the process and generally how to be ready to apply. For schools that are new to 

the process, that which the Dept. of Ed provides is not sufficient to acquaint them with how to 

prepare. I would suggest the following: - A year prior to a competition cycle I would offer 

workshops designed to help applicants understand what the questions will be and how they 

might begin to assemble data to support the requests they will make - I would identify a date 

upon which the competition would begin, and stick to that date. - I would have a mailing list and 

provide a place on the SIP website that would allow potential applicants to sign up to be notified 

of the release of the application. Most are not familiar with the Federal Register. - I would host 

pre-application workshops prior to the release of the application. They used to be offered 

approximately three months prior, but in more recent times they have happened halfway through 

the writing window. - I would announce the types of awards that might be given long before the 

release of the application. Example: The year we applied there were two award types given. 

One was for a higher dollar amount and required a more extensive amount of work and 

reporting. Had we known that was going to be an option we would have planned with that in 

mind. As it was, the short amount of time allotted for the writing did not permit us to also create 

a plan such as would've been required for that higher-dollar grant opportunity.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 685

Award notifications and those that don't receive it in a more timely manner.

Concise deadlines and list of criteria needed for the grant application.

Earlier announcements of the grant offering and earlier (more timely) announcement of awards 

so preparation can begin prior to the grant start date. Learning on Sept 30 of an award is 

exhilarating, but also very defeating in that the award starts the following day and one has had 

no time to plan, especially related to searching and hiring personnel to begin the project work in 

a timely manner, causing huge delays the first year in meeting goals and objectives, as well as 

budget issues.

Eliminate duplication of information in the application. The Comprehensive Development Plan is 

too lengthy and detailed. Need to allow more pages in the Activity Overview to describe the 

activity.

Host the webinar explaining the launch of the competition 3-6 months in advance.

I am a one person office. Although we know competitions like SIP, TRIO, etc. are coming, a 

longer time between the announcement and deadline for submission would really help small 

organizations.

I am not sure.

I am unclear of the eligibility requirements. The IREPO webinar was chaotic. The award 

amount of $1M - $3M is not enough to spread around. I would have liked to see the Dept. of 

Education offer a grant to each state to help off set the issue with the three priorities.

I don't know

I think the process works well currently.

It is satisfactory.

List topics of successful grants.

More clarity regarding instructions would be my only requested improvement.

More frequent communication and more responsive communication.

More guidance for new grantees on evaluation, reporting, program management.

n/a

N/A

NA
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 686

No improvement needed

No specific suggestions.

None that I can think of at this time.

Not sure of anything specific to change.

Not sure.

provide feedback on unrealistic goals in grant application.

We received notice of our award two days before it started. At least two months notice would be 

far better. Also, more notice of the upcoming competition - for instance, the 'F' competition was 

not offered during the year of our application. It would have been helpful to know that, and to 

have more time to write a thoughtful proposal.

Student Support and Academic Enrichment

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

More connected to how a user would visit the site to find information regarding requirements and 

programs.

Nothing at this time.

I don't believe I've used the OESE website.

Provide community spotlights on how funds are being used. Where is the line between the DOE website 

and T4P4 coordinators website. I do see some event state coordinators materials posted here.

I do not use the site regularly.

None at this time.

I do not have any suggestions on improving the website. The content is easily found when it is accessed 

through the search bar or Google.

I tend to rely upon the AIR site for things related to T4PA, therefore, I don't feel I'm best positioned to 

offer insights. Thank you.

Maybe, it is due to the words being used to try to research or locate a document. An initial page that will 

have the main items for a state federal coordinator working in the different programs.

The nomenclature of the 'offices' within OESE is confusing (offices within offices). For example, to Office 

of Formula Grants seems to have mostly discretionary grants in it.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 687

Improve the search bar and better vet sources so items can be used more easily. Would also be nice to 

have a place for statute related questions that have been asked and answered.

I typically use the T4PA center website when looking for information on IV-A.

I usually need to find things other than T4A. For T4A I have lots of resources. It's other topics that always 

seem to be difficult to find.

Work to provide clearer guidance regarding allowable use of funds for each of the categories under 

SSAE. In addition, SEAs and LEAs need more assistance in ensuring that they are implementing 

programs that meet the criteria for evidenced based activities to ensure that subrecipients are 

demonstrating that the USDE is recieving a return on investments.

Honestly don't use it that much. It serves a great purpose when needed.

Overall the US ED website is not user friendly, some links to guidance have not been updated or simply 

go to a 'unavailable' webpage.

There isn't much in the way of useful guidance information on the OESE website specific to the Title IV, 

Part A program.

Categorical organization of resources easier to distinguish.

How grant reporting process could be improved?

Nothing at this time. As much advanced notice on the CSPR data needed is wise & helpful.

There could have been a lot more clarity earlier on. I feel that the CSPR reporting was dropped in my lap 

at the last minute and my LEA partners were not prepared to submit data in a way that was required.

Clear guidelines and instructions, examples of how to obtain the information

Provide templates with detailed instructions and time frames that the ED wants all states to use.

NA

I am a new state coordinator and I don't know what is included in the reporting process at this time.

T4PA is a complex grant with multiple spending areas. If you were to raise the data requests to the level 

of the grant, rather than the three content areas, it would ease reporting.

For USDE to continue providing explanations in a timely matter. Also, make sure they are hearing from 

the State coordinators working in the programs.

More TA on how to use reported data for continuous improvement. Currently, we use our own data for 

this, not the data that is submitted for CSPR.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 688

I think more training opportunities would help

I think it is new, so we are still getting the hang of it. The CSPR reporting excel sheet was a really great 

and effective resource to help with this.

Please provide timely details on reporting elements and training as appropriate.

Remove the new CSPR reporting requirement for T4A.

CSPR was confusing and challenging due to waiting for final guidance. It is also very hard to collect after 

the fact. Looking forward to years to come and being able to set things up on our end to collect the 

correct data going forward.

Making it very clear what data needs to be collected before grant applications are written would be 

helpful so we can ensure that our grant applications are capturing the information that is needed by US 

Ed.

The grant reporting process is fine. What I don't understand is why Title IV needs to report out on the 

three separate areas of well-rounded, technology, and safe and healthy. In my opinion, many of these 

areas overlap, and if they are all allowable, I don't understand why the cap or why we have to report 

these three different areas. Based on a school's needs assessment, they should be able to apply these 

funds in areas where they have need- not USDE-imposed caps.

Not involved in the reporting process.

Clarity as to why dollar amount for each content area. Providing data for LEAs that consolidate funds. 

How transferred funds are utilized.

This will be the first year of completing CSPR data for the Title IV, Part A program. We will learn more 

from the process once it concludes.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

Nothing at this time.

Responses must be made in a timely fashion. I recently got a 'go look at the guidance' email response to 

a question I asked literally six months ago.

more advance notice of opportunities available. state coordinator schedules are often booked weeks in 

advance.

Please let us know what technical assistance they can provide. I didn't know those things were available. 

I thought we were supposed to go through the T4PA Center.

None at this time.

The technical assistance staff is great! The staff is very knowledgeable and available to offers TA or a 

regular basis via biweekly connect and collaboration meetings and virtual meetings.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 689

The tool kit for trainings seems to be dated. As a new coordinator, its hard to know if this information is 

correct or if I should be searching for additional information.

The Department's staff--and our liaison [REDACTED]--are terrific. [REDACTED] is very responsive to 

our questions, and he often has to reach out to his colleagues in other areas of the USED to get answers 

for us. He has been great in coordinating responses for us.

I think with all the things happeningand waivers that this is providing some difficulties in focusing on the 

statue's meaning.

The responses provided to the previous questions were in regard to ED staff, not the T4PA Center, 

where many of those items are addressed (e.g. peer to peer opps, etc.). The Need Assessment is not 

user friendly. If districts had access to all the data requested, the tool wouldn't even be necessary. At a 

high level it may have made sense, but in practicality it didn't work. If the SEA staff were to use it, we 

would spend all of our time answering district questions about how to complete it. In our state, there are 

other needs assessments already being used for state and federal purposes that are more useful to use 

for the Title IV-A needs assessment requirements.

More clear answers. Often the answers are vague

The TA provided by the T4PA center is excellent.

This is improving. I have learned the most from in-person trainings with a variety of ED staff, such as the 

office for non-public schools, in attendance.

Increase the frequency and topics that the Department staff offers in order to meet the SEAs needs.

Maybe hold annual or semi-annual meetings with each state to talk state-specific needs and answer 

questions.

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

Assistance with interpretation of the Non-regulatory Guidance and allowabilities for LEAs.

T4PA Center

T4PA Center

T4PA TA Center and AIr Staff.

Office Hour: connect and collaborate

AIR

T4PA Center

T4PA Center
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 690

T4PA Center

T4PA

Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools Technical Assistance Center

Can't remember their name. They are OK - but when I need info I go to my project officer - she always 

gets me what I need and is the authority.

Comprehensive Centers and frequent check ins with our regional rep with AIR.

Comprehensive Centers and REMS TA Center

I have worked with Calynn Evans in group meetings and one-on-one meetings and evaluations.

Region 11 CC, N & D, SRCL/CLSD, T4, etc.

T4PA Center

T4PA Center

T4PA Center

T4PA sponsored webinars and open calls

T4PA T/TA

Title IV Part A Center

Title IV, Part A Technical Assistance Center (T4PA Center)

Youth for Youth, REL Midwest

What is your job role?

Education Specialist

Attorney/State Coordinator

State Federal Programs Bureau Chief

Title IV State Coordinator

CUSTOM QUESTIONS
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 691

SSAE - 2020 - Q37.3. How can we improve our NCSSLE website, including links, to help 

you identify program resources and meet your technical assistance needs?

Nothing at this time.

Ensure it is updated. Add new resources.

N/A

NA

I am still learning about how I will use this website. I have currently only used it for the nonregulatory guidance link.

I tend to spend more time at this site: https://t4pacenter.ed.gov/index.aspx

When visited, I find what I need for myself or others.

Better organization of resources to make it easy to find the resources you are looking for, 

whether for Title IV-A or other resources (school climate surveys, etc.).

Better way of sorting information by topics

I thought the NCSSLE website was no longer being updated. The T4PA center website is the 

main site that I access.

SSAE - 2020 - Q37.6. How can we improve our Title IV Part A Portal to help you identify 

program resources and meet your technical assistance needs?

Allow more informal networking among states rather than moderated.

Ease in finding resources. I have trouble accessing webinar, etc. Do not know where they are 

located.

Great people, quality documents. Nothing at this time.

https://titleivpartastatecoordinatorportal.ed.gov/user/login is a dead link. I believe this is the old 

portal.

I have really appreciated the summary of responses about allowable costs that have come in. 

are all of the allowable costs questions that come to DOE included there or just the ones posted 

in the discussion board? it would be helpful to have all of the lawyers responses to all questions 

related to allowable costs in one location.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 692

Make it easier to reply to portal comments.

N/A

NA

Please post the Non -regulatory guidance.

The link in the survey doesn't work and this is the first time that I have been given this website.

The most recent link in this survey did not work. Presuming you mean the AIR site for T4PA, I 

do visit that page on occasion. One of the best offerings by AIR is the networking with other 

states and the discussion boards. Sometimes it's hard to find things using the search features 

of the discussion board. I'm wondering if there might be a better way to organize content. . 

.Sometimes I know I have read a particular discussion, and then I have difficulty (re)locating that 

discussion at a later date.

They have listened to us and made changes recently to the portal.

Student Support Services

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

None at this time

Provide and update timelines during critical grant cycles.

Maybe have more FAQ. There are only 9 listed. A directory of other SSS programs would be helpful.

Keep information relevant and up-to-date.

Make it a little more visual; use graphics.

In the past, TRiO Priority Training information takes several weeks (sometimes months) to be updated. I 

have had to search on other websites to get the most up to date training information/dates.

The site feels and looks like a federal website that is dense and bureaucratic. I wish there was simplicity 

to the website.

If it was easier to search and find necessary information, that would be helpful. Making sure information 

is up to date (not several years old), that would also be helpful

No specific ideas at this time

Better or more headings so information is easier to find
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 693

Make it more user friendly. During the Covid-19 pandemic, why didn't the ED publish answer to most 

frequently asked questions. You touted that you were so helpful during your zoom meetings, but you 

didn't offer much help on your website. More timely information. Ask for real-time assistance from 

professionals in the field who attempt to use the site.

None.

I think the website us user friendly for seasoned TRIO professionals. More graphics and how-to videos 

could be helpful for new professionals and directors.

The Department could improve by frequently Updating information.

It would be helpful if the Department website was up-to-date. Navigation is somewhat difficult, so it 

would be helpful to include 'others have searched' phrases to assist in getting to the correct information.

Remove dead links, keep information updated, make it more searchable and less document heavy

Provide more current and relevant information regarding the TRIO programs

Due to COVID and changing dynamics of educational services and opportunities presented by Cares Act, 

can updates be emailed to all SSS programs regularly for related opportunities in First Generation, Low 

Income, and Documented Disability student populations? Great support overall throughout these 

changing times we all face collectively for the benefit of our student populations.

Please improve your search capabilities. We need to be able to search on key words and pull up the 

correct/applicable regulation that our guides our services.

Post information in a more timely fashion. For example the TRIO Training opportunities are always 

posted MONTHS LATE. Additionally, when dates change (ie. APR going live) I would think the most 

appropriate/accurate place to look should be the Department of Ed. website and yet updates/changes are 

not made nor highlighted.

Keep items more up-to-date. There are times when information was put out by COE much more quickly 

than the DoE website.

Post updated information sooner

Update as soon as possible, including current/active RFPs, data, and deadlines.

The Department could improve its website by keeping data up to date, removing or archiving out of date 

information and make website more user friendly.

No recommendations at this time.

No comment.

no response

More user friendly resouces
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 694

Searchability

The Department could provide important updates such as the status of the Grant Application process.

Providing a summary of where to locate specific regulations would be more comprehensive and helpful 

instead of just including links. Maybe an FAQ? For example, what can programs find in Uniform 

Guidance to direct their work? What can programs find in the Higher Education Act? Where can we find 

the definition of first-generation, low-income? There are many commonly asked questions that could be 

addressed on the website and point users to the correct regulation/legislation. We received an email with 

new Program Officers, but that information is not updated on the website.

Update information daily and have a discussion topic area for program directors and program officers to 

discuss real concerns especially during this pandemic, since this is new to everyone.

not sure

Provide more helpful inks/search options. 2 examples - difficult to find the letter stating that SSS can use 

FAFSA data to help determine eligibility; sections/references in the OMB to help support our program and 

program decisions i.e. consistent treatment for grant employees vs similar employees on campus - I 

know it is there, but I still can't find it

I would only say to update a little faster. As an example - new SSS grant competition recipients were 

announced in early august and the list of funded programs is still not on the website.

Add a Q and A -- that addresses, If you are looking for ..... this is where to find it. Under the Broad 

categories add more subheadings for each TRIO Program Overall, have the website more 'user' 

friendly, for a person that may not be website 'savvy' or just new at using this huge website.

x

The GAN site could look more user friendly. I have to click around to find the document I need because 

there are several tabs that I have never needed and I don't think I'll ever need that I still have to sort 

through.

Updating the look would be great. Bolder/easier to find links to categories of information.

Have the 'What's New' section stand out, so it is easily visible.

Things could get updated in a more timely manner. For instance, the TRIO Trainings website currently 

still shows the 19-20 training schedule, even though it is October, and in the Introduction section it says it 

is the 18-19 schedule. This makes planning difficult.

The content is helpful and generally easy to navigate. However, it is often out of date.

User-friendly, pleasing to the eye. (Interactive, real-time information)

Given the complexity of the information, I think the Department does an excellent job with its website.

The USDOE TRiO SSS page would benefit from including a program updates section.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 695

Up-to-date information

No Improvements Currently

While all necessary information can be found, it is not always intuitive. Some links have been broken at 

times and some information is out of date.

It would be helpful to have a contact list of TRIO professionals at each institution for each SSS/TRIO 

program.

The website is easy to use and navigate.

I would recommend the department to utilize a stronger search tool bar for new TRIO officers to navigate 

the site.

information isn't updated frequently. Notices are not sent regarding when updates are made. Somewhat 

cumbersome to use.

Consider providing timely online updates, especially to the TRiO services page.

Training on completing the annual report.

Communications from SSS Program officers is very infrequent, but is duplicative of other program 

officers's communications and not often specific to SSS.

I use it very little, therefore, it would not be appropriate for me to speak on.

Information regarding grant competitions, training for professional development is posted too late to use 

for planning, including budget planning.

Ensure updated information is available at all times

The site could reflect estimated time frames for the release of notifications such as competitions, APR's 

or delays in the processes.

Easier ways to look up relevant regs and legs within Edgar

I am satisfied with the website.

I think it works fine like it is.

It would be helpful is the list of awards was kept up to date.

Keep information more updated.

More defined sections and links to legs and regs.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 696

no comments

Provide more information about what schools were funded in the SSS competition and the 'cut off' scores 

for the winning grants

Size of print. I would like to see the print larger.

How grant reporting process could be improved?

N/A

Review the need for all the information being reported. Additional reporting information is added over the 

years, but rarely removed.

Different SSS programs use different data collection software. Blumen is helpful, but I think changes over 

time has made that particular software tool cumbersome. Maybe the department can assist with a 

consistent data collection tool for all programs to use that is specific to SSS.

Haven't had many issues with reporting.

The process is quite simple so no changes.

Print out all of the reporting steps and explain each portion. I was fortunate enough to attend a training 

where the steps were explained, and as someone who has completed the report it was easy to 

understand. However, for someone new it would not be as easy to understand.

Schedule it at a regular time each year.

So far, I have not run into any issues with the grant reporting process.

I do not know how the department uses the data.

The ease of leaving and coming back to an APR is not always easy-I've had to start over repeatedlyespecially on part one if I am working my way through part 1 section 2. The way this data is used beyond 

awarding prior experience points is not clear to me.

Sometimes more than one answer is correct if we're trying to accurately give the picture of the students 

enrollment. Depending on the combination of responses, you get an error message. I should not have to 

assign a different race after I've already stated a person is of HIspanic ethnicity. I'm not going to 'guess' 

and that also creates error messages. Finally, not all students start out at a college intending to complete 

their degree there. Therefore, we should get to count students that we assist in transferring without a 

degree as a transfer success.

no suggestions

Provide consistent timeframe each year (APR deadlines are different every year)
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 697

Keep the due date consistent each year.

None.

Possibly how-to videos for new TRIO Directors and professionals.

The department's grant reporting process is accurate.

It would be helpful to know more of the ways our data is being used.

Add a qualitative report section.

Grant reporting process is easy to follow and clearly detailed for all objectives.

A single mistake made in reporting a student is propagated for the next six years of reporting and cannot 

be fixed. A typo, a misspelling - these types of errors can derail reporting for years.

Share with program what the Department of Ed. does with the CPP reporting.

Get information out on the website more quickly.

An improvement could be to allow the college student ID number to replace the random federal number 

that replaced the social security number.

Clear and consistent deadlines for submitting the report. More technical support from the reporting 

website. An opportunity to soft submit the data and review before final submission.

N/A

N/A

No comment.

no response

Eliminate the duplication of many of the required fields.

More clarification on how to report on competitive preference priorities (CPPs).

Good

Please continue to provide support the way you have been educating TRiO personnel about the 

requirements and APR submission process.

I would not have been able to submit our proposal if I had not had a seasoned TRIO professional 

assisting me in the process. Forms and fields are not well-explained.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 698

No comment.

Have consistent deadlines

Overall the process is not too bad, one of the more efficient ones I have experience with. My biggest 

issue is with our database vendor, not the process itself

I would request the data earlier an allow more than 30 days to submit...i.e. put out the request Oct 1 and 

allow it to be due by Dec 1st...especially if there is a major change in how data is reported

Some of the data fields are redundant and need to be shortened.

Everything is fine.

N/A

I believe there needs to be a range for meeting program objectives rather than the binary 'yes' or 'no.' Ex. 

80% Objective should allow a 2-3 point margin, so that 77% would meet the goal.

More assistance with understanding the data and how to improve for the following reporting year.

Making competition materials available in a timely fashion so that the competition happens earlier in the 

year to give the department enough time to review and make notifications in early spring.

It would be helpful if we had the option of voluntary reporting of allowable (in addition to mandatory) 

services. While I realize the main intent of the APR is to track objectives, many programs also use it as a 

consistent evaluative metric for service usage. However, an evaluative metric that covers more of our 

awarded grant requirements would be very helpful in this regard.

Receiving feedback in a timely manner.

No suggestions-I liked the idea of removing the social security numbers for students.

I am not sure.

Help us to better understand how you use the data.

Works well for me, no improvements on the grant reporting process.

it would be great to be able to see the summarized results of our APR. For instance, across 4 year 

institutions, the persistence rate average is 'X', graduation rate is 'x'. Amidst COVID, will programs be 

penalized in any way if we don't meet our objective(s)?

I can't think of any suggestions at this time.

Provide how to process for new or first time submissions.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 699

Trainings seem to just be someone from ED reading word for word what was already sent out - not 

additional instruction or advice. Other than determining PE points, I'm not sure how the information is 

used.

Provide consistent annual due dates.

As noted, training on completing the annual report would be very helpful. Additionally, providing access to 

a sample report or the reporting earlier than the limited window (while continuing to withhold submission 

until due) would have helped. The data validation tool was particularly frustrating because it on occasion 

would not allow the input of correct data. Furthermore, responsive program offices which offered 

assistance not only in training on the report but for errors during its completion.

Not sure

Please specifically outline how Competitive Preference Priorities will be evaluated BEFORE the grant 

cycle begins. More specifically, what specific data will be requested in the APR and how will we need to 

report it? It is extremely difficult to do this AFTER the reporting year has ended.

Disseminate the information in a timely manner

Communicate all changes clearly and succinctly on the cover page and a fully staffed information line for 

questions. The turnover rates in the TRIO program is high and often requires additional follow up 

questions from the project director.

How the data is calculated and for what purposes. Date of first Service or Date of enrollment which one is 

calculated for 6 year graduation makes since date of enrollment but it seems the persistence points come 

from date of first service.

I have found over the past 4 years the lack of learning how to interpret collection of data. I have never 

seen a workshop presentation on good collecting techniques. I struggle with returning students, and 

good methods on how to track a specific cohort. I've had staff turnover, and had to learn myself how to 

prepare the APR. It only became easier when I purchase an online collection support called Student 

Access. They have been the most helpful in correcting data during the APR. No where was it suggested 

how or why these collection online programs are necessary to track and evaluate your data. The 

department puts out guidelines but it would be useful to have new directors learn how and why this is 

important in assessing, and evaluating your data collected by participants for program requirements. We 

need a specific 'how to prepare for the APR', 'how to make corrections' on the APR, and 'why we report 

on all participants'. Data driven decisions are necessary in the beginning of the academic year, midway 

through, and of course at the end. I just can't say enough good things about Student Access. It has 

made my program more effective as I'm able to view the status of my program participants. Thank you.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

-None at this time

More FAQs and toolboxes on the SSS web page. Maybe have a chat feature for quick non-regulatory 

questions.

N/A
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 700

Some can be more user-friendly

Reduce the amount of time in providing information to the SSS community. It took too long to get the 

FAQs after the pandemic hit. As a project director you are cautious, however, when much needed 

information comes late it makes it difficult to implement as it is very close to other deadlines. More 

trainings, more readily available information. Provide training for all grant elements including extension 

requests etc. Have templates for project directors to use to ensure consistency.

I have always found readily available technical assistance to be quite helpful.

N/A

Provide increased frequency of updates during COVID. Provide answers to submitted questions from 

grantees. Updates were infrequent and when offered did not provide answers to critical outstanding 

questions. Timeliness, consistency, accuracy and relevancy were inadequate.

Technical assistance trainings are some of the most inconsistent information sessions I have ever 

attended for a few reasons. First, some people get information on these events and some don't. If you 

ask questions, the staff are not always able or willing to answer and say that they cannot be held 

responsible for their answers. Often they read off a slide and do not actually provide in depth information.

FAQ's need to be more timely. It took too long to answer questions during the beginning of COVID. 

What answers were provided were not necessarily clear.

Do more than read regulations at trainings. Be more timely with information

More timely responses and updates during COVID-19 would have been very beneficial.

N/A

nonr

There could be more technical assistance throughout the year and professional development provided by 

Department staff so that grantees are on the same page.

I have no suggestions for improvements at this time.

More assistance would be helpful. More trainings and general information specific to our program would 

be great. We like hearing from the Department of Ed but often the message is general and not specific to 

our programs.

They could respond more, be clearer, more consistent across programs.

It is always helpful to provide as much technical assistance sessions to improve program delivery.

Staff has been very helpful in all program needs and responses are very timely.

N/A
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 701

Please ensure that the communication of technical assistance opportunities are sent more than once and 

in one communication style. For example, the Department contracted with a company (Longevity 

Consulting) to send time-sensitive communications with deadlines that cold have had significant impact 

on my program - which I did NOT receive. It was through my communication with colleagues and 

persistence with my Program Officer that I was able to track down the communication I hadn't received 

when I should have.

The webinars from the DoE in spring 2020 were somewhat helpful. There were many questions though 

that were not answered quickly enough and the delay caused confusion.

Decisions should be based on regulations and not vary from program specialist to program specialist. 

Program specialists should be very clear in advance if there is a special format they want for budget, etc. 

Multiple revisions based primarily on format take up time for both the preparer and the reviewer.

Provide more of these that are specific to SSS and separate from other TRIO programs. Create the 

agendas for these from feedback from program directors. Focus these on emerging concerns that need 

to be addressed.

N/A

N/A

No comment.

no response

Provide more technical assistance workshops.

Unsure

We have received the responses we needed every time we have reached out for help. One way in which 

the department can improve their services is by having technical support staff who operate on Pacific 

Time.

I have not requested technical assistance from Department staff.

Simply allow the program officers and program directors the opportunity to have several discussion 

forums on various common concerns especially as it relates to the pandemic and possible program 

changes/interruptions.

Timeliness of information and/or guidance

Have more staff, sometimes you have to wait a long time to get answers

I have attended trainings and these are helpful. At my campus, it is difficult to get tech. assistance staff 

to understand the terminology and information I need to gather that 'matches' with DOE.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 702

the webinars regarding were covid were not helpful. they provided info that was well known publicly 

months before. one of them seemed to be self-congratulatory. it was them praising the administration 

heavily.

My Program Officer is great with meeting my program needs.

Keeping Department of Education website updated in time to catch Priority Trainings. We often have to 

rely on our informal TRIO networks to find the newest information.

There is not much interpersonal interaction with staff, as in the past. There used to be more of a personal 

touch from Department staff that provided more support to Directors.

Provide opportunities more often.

They are doing an excellent job especially with information sharing and training.

No suggestions

To include best practices for online and remote programming.

Great Job keeping us informed, no improvement is needed currently.

Continue to have more technical trainings more often throughout the year.

We have not had any issues where we have had to contact technical assistance.

People are afraid to use a listserv because the Dept. may take questions asked and penalize grantees. 

Trainings are information that was sent out via email that is then read, word for word, via Zoom call or 

conference call.

Program Specialist was always there to answer our questions and provide guidance.

Offer online tools/videos that are always available.

Training on TRIO programs, completing the annual report, et cetera.

FAQs and other assistance could be more accurately aligned and clearly stated in the context of the law 

and regulations.

Most technical assistance workshops put on by ED - the presenter just reads verbatim what it says in the 

regulations. There's no clarification, just reading directly from what it says in the regulations. It's a waste 

of time and resources to do this. The SSS Priority trainings are MUCH better than the technical 

assistance workshops.

N/A
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 703

When there are questions during a training, often those are left unanswered; simply reading a script. It 

would be great to have someone who could feel comfortable answering clarifying questions. Make sure 

FAQ's etc are timely.

When USDE provides technical assistance workshops, USDE staff are often challenged with restrictions, 

limitations in information sharing, and timelines. If USDE could advocate for timely and clear 

communication, it would assist in the confusion and frustration across programs.

What is your job role?

College Program Director

Project Director/Principal Investigator

SSS Project Director

Interim Project Director

Project Director

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

SSS - 2020 - Q25.2. How can Student Support Services improve the usefulness of the 

technical assistance you receive?

none

When there is a change in staff, program directors should be notified and emails to that former 

employee should route up to the next Student Support Services staff in authority.

Non-responsiveness is a huge issue. Not much can be done when you don't receive any 

feedback at all.

no changes needed

I understand that there are a lot of programs to oversee, however, a quicker response to issues 

would be greatly appreciated as directors need to halt their submission until they receive a 

response.

Respond in a timely fashion and update us regularly when program contact personnel change.

N/A

Providing TIMELY information would be so beneficial. Training their own staff on FAQs and 

regulations would also be helpful.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 704

FAQs should match the grant/services the programs provide and the regulations guiding the 

specific program. Sometimes they are too general and can be difficult to interpret.

no suggestions

Responsiveness in the last few years has been poor

I have no suggestions for improvements.

n/a

Respond in a reasonable manner, instead of leaving emails unanswered for weeks, months or 

at times, never responding.

The technical assistance is useful and by increasing the frequency of the technical assistance 

can improve the usefulness.

The technical assistance I have received have been extremely useful for program services.

N/A

Provide information further in advance of due dates and timely processes.

Provide a more timely announcement of RFP as well as awarding and schedule assistance 

opportunities accordingly. In the past training opportunities are scheduled before the final 

information is released, so you either need to play the odds and hope you pick the right date to 

attend or risk waiting too long for another to be held and miss out entirely. Many programs do 

not have the financials from the program or institution (pending regulations of allowable service) 

to attend more than 1 training for the same purpose. Also many trainings are only held on the 

coasts, many rural programs in the midwest would like a local opportunity as well.

This was an unusual year and we were asked to focus on the past 12 months. Prior to Covid 

they were much more responsive and my responses would have been different.

Be more precise, responsive and clear on answers to questions.

N/A

No comment.

Could respond in a quicker manner.

Going well currently

Continue to provide time-efficient response.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 705

If this refers to response from our program officers, I have only had my current officer for 4-5 

months. During COVID, it was extremely difficult to get answers. By the time the FAQs came 

out, we had already dealt with crises and weren't able to address immediate needs of our

students because there was no direction. Faster communication that is relevant would be 

helpful. I know ED is at the mercy of Congress, but this affects the lives of our students in real 

time. We cannot wait.

No comment.

Release instructions for grant proposals sooner so that we can have more time to write.

not sure

In webinars and other trainings sometimes participants ask questions that are so bad or reflect a 

lot of ignorance that those questions might better to be answered one on one after the webinar 

rather than in the webinar. I'm almost shocked at the cluelessness of some of the questions. 

Trying to answer bad questions in the webinar can sometimes derail it and cause confusion.

I do not request Technical Assistance often, so I do not have any suggestions at this point. The 

APR is where I need the most TA, and I use Blumen and the APR instructions. When there 

were some new changes, I appreciated the webinars and Q and A's.

I am not sure what is meant by technical assistance. If it is the Program Officer, I rarely heard 

from [REDACTED]. Never in 7 years did [REDACTED] approve a budget. [REDACTED] said 

to email [REDACTED] and when I did, [REDACTED] told me to call. When I called, 

[REDACTED] said I should email [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] wasn't helpful and basically i 

learned not to contact [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] has recently left. The person I have now, 

this month, seems very responsive and helpful.

The technical assistance that I receive is great.

N/A

I think these services are very helpful to new program staff, but perhaps not for more specific or 

complex concerns.

N/A They do a wonderful job especially [REDACTED]

Not Applicable.

Regulations can frequently be unclear to us a project directors.

None at the moment

Shorten the length of time it takes to get a response.

I feel this is appropriate at this time.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 706

Shorten the wait time for a response.

In terms of the technical assistance we received from website support, that was very 

satisfactory. The technical assistance we received from our program office was negligible.

Train program officers to become subject matter experts to the extent necessary to provide 

effective guidance to SSS TRIO professionals.

SSS - 2020 - Q25.5. What can the Student Support Services do to improve communication 

with you?

- Sufficient time to notify funded slate programs so that they can reassure the programs' staff 

and grantee regarding the future of the project at the institution.

Notification of new grant awards in August prior to new year beginning in September affects 

services to students. Notifications by July 1 seems reasonable. Notifications within the grant 

cycle are ok.

Respond to emails.

SSS do a very good job

Communicate frequently, particularly when it comes to important deadlines. Also, it would have 

been nice to receive consistent updates in terms of the grant application review process.

Maintain regular contact. Notify of changes in personnel.

It would be very helpful to know about funding sooner than we have in the past. Finding out right 

before the grant cycle begins makes it difficult when you already have staff in place. You feel 

very vulnerable as a grant staff member because there is a possibility that you did not score 

high enough and will not get refunded.

I noticed there was no opportunity to share ways to improve the grant application approval 

notification. I believe that the Department will be rated low in that area, and yet nothing will be 

done. Someone in the survey review process will say 'well there is no surprise there!' and that is 

it. Nothing will actually be done to make improvements. Then why ask that question? Don't 

pacify SSS professionals with a survey and then not act on the results. I'm not sure what the 

approval process looks like, and I'm sure there are a lot of variables. If there is so much nuance 

to the process, then don't ask me to rate that section! Don't put it on the survey. Leave it off, and 

know that SSS directors will always be frustrated, and nothing can be done. If I'm wrong then

address it!

Our current grant officer is responsive and clear in [REDACTED] communication. In my 5 years 

with SSS we have had 5 grant officers with varying lengths of time. On the whole, they have 

been responsive and easy to work with. However, during a critical time we were assigned a 

grant officer who did not respond to emails and was not helpful when we would call to followup 

on critical questions or answers needed.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 707

My program specialist has communicated with me on several occasions with what seems to be 

a blanket email instead of one that actually addresses my specific request or question. I've 

received emails back requesting information that I have already sent. Responses have taken 

several weeks/months by which time I would have had to move forward on things to not 

endanger the progress and effectiveness of the program. When I have to remind my program 

specialist of regulations that make something allowable, that is frustrating AND when responses 

between program specialists is incredibly inconsistent, this leads to questions amongst directors 

of how programs can submit similar things and receive such divergent responses.

Make grant award notifications on time according to legislation

I never hear from my program specialist. I only hear from them if I initiate the contact. My 

previous specialist would notify me of missing reports that did not pertain to my grant and give 

me arbitrary deadlines that made no sense, they would notify me that my budget was missing 

(with harsh warnings) when I had sent and received receipts for the documents from months 

before. I have received no communication from my program specialist during COVID-19. I 

have felt like I am floating out here on my own, hoping I am getting good information from COE.

I know the program specialists are busy but it could be helpful to have monthly check-in 

meetings with groups of project directors to establish consistent communication.

SSS have communicated very well with me, over the years.

More trainings would be helpful.

I appreciate when the POs send out the same information to each of their programs however, 

they rarely provide follow up when asked questions and if they do, it is rarely the same follow up 

for each program.

Provide more information regarding processes, changes, and overall status of the department.

For program grant application, timely communications such as a clearly outlined schedule of 

information to applicants (such as 3 months notification) will help inform our future short and 

long term decisions for program services. Overall, USDOE is a significant funding support that 

has greatly impacted the lives of so many countless First Generation, Low Income, and 

Documented Disability for generations that have come through and will continue forward in the 

future. Very grateful and thankful for all the support USDOE and SSS program support.

This is all occurring during a pandemic, which is not our usual way of doing things, so I am 

bearing that in mind. It would be excellent if I more guidance was given about the latitude of 

allowable expenses during this pandemic. We are not authorized to pay for food for students, 

there was some language indicating the UB/UBMS/VUB were able to do that during the 

pandemic -does this apply to SSS too? How can I find out? My program officer is swamped with 

carryover grants, new grants, and grant appeals.

I appreciated the SSS post-award meeting with my Program Officer offered this year. This has 

never been offered in the previous eight years I have worked in TRIO-SSS.

Actually communicate with me. I received one specific email to my program all of last year. The 

timeliness of the grant notification was awful. I still have not had my budget approved and it is 

22 days into the budget year. How am I to run a program correctly without knowing if my 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 708

proposed budget is even approved. Activities should not have to start in October or November 

for students just because my PO doesn't approve my budget on time.

Typically the need surfaces after grant submissions for the competition are submitted and while 

applicants await notification. For example many readers' scores were dated in April, yet 

programs don't hear until July or August. I think even a periodic update of where the 

department is in the process may be perceived better by applicants.

Quicker response. Answer phones.

Communicate more often. Answer emails in a timely manner. Be willing to schedule calls or 

video conferences to ask questions and follow-up questions. Receive support and answers on 

budget questions and concerns in a more timely manner.

Communicate in a more timely manner

N/A

No comment.

Emails have been great. Responsiveness to questions at times has been slow in coming.

Timely responses to emails.

Going well

Please adhere to set timelines when communicating the status of grant applications and 

successful awardees of grant funds.

More regular email communication regarding CONSISTENT answers for allowable and 

unallowable costs. Program officers will approve one program's request and another program 

officer may not approve the same request. I often feel like they are only responding to requests 

or submissions if they are incorrect. What about more direction and frequent communication 

BEFORE a problem occurs.

Communication with SSS is excellent and no improvement is needed.

Be more transparent and timely

This is not the easiest to answer right now due to sample size, our program specialist is new (in 

the last couple of months). So far so good, very small sample size

I feel that SSS keeps me informed pretty well, but I still don't understand how to deal with 

student travel and whether it can be charged indirect dollars. This was a change that was not 

and has not been explained very well.

There are so many things to consider, for example, I know each campus, especially the Fiscal 

Office at my campus, has their deadlines to meet that do not match in regards to timing of 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 709

closing out the books for each FY. It seems sometimes there are the long 'wait and see' 'we 

have to get back to you' statements, and that communication needs to improve.

The budget was due and I missed the deadline in 2019. the program officer said [REDACTED]

sent an email. I checked both my inbox and spam filter to find no notification.

The communication between my Program Officer and myself is great.

N/A

If I have a question then I rely on my colleagues to help me out which is not always accurate 

information. It would be nice if there was better access and timely reponse to program 

specialists and their answer be accurate with the legs and regs of the grant.

Tell us when guidance is pending, prior to getting the same questions dozens of time! We 

understand that legislative change takes time, but no communication is worse than bad news. 

(Very specific to pandemic concerns of course, but generally a trend.) Please also keep our time 

constraints in mind. For instance, guidance on budget submission the day before budgets are 

due does not allow us to update campus approvers and get required approvals before said 

deadline.

N/A My program specialist responds promptly in the most effective and professional 

manner. I do not have any issues obtaining information for clarity or otherwise.

Send out more memos when waiting for funded proposal announcements.

Clear and concise information regarding program, grant, and competition updates.

2-3 month notification of grant award, gives time for new grantees to hire needed staff for

programming.

Acknowledgment of received emails if specific feedback will take more than 2 weeks.

Finding out about this new grant so close to the start of a new academic year was incredibly 

stressful. If folks could be notified whether or not their institution received the SSS grant in July, 

it would have been much easier/less stressful. Regarding communication with our program 

officer, it would be great to not have such a long time to wait in between sending emails. I 

understand though, our program officers are incredibly busy and are overseeing alot of 

programs. When communication happens, it's always been great! It's just the wait can 

sometimes be incredibly long, and we can't move forward on certain items without their 

approval.

I am not aware of anything at this time.

I feel this is an area of tremendous improvement for the Department of Education. The process 

is challenging but to not have any level of communication brings about a high level of anxiety 

and uncertainty for members of the TRIO SSS project and the institution.

I've heard that the Program Specialist is supposed to be a resource for directors, and I've heard 

don't ask your program specialist questions because it will raise a red flag for your program and 

institution. They can't be both.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 710

My Program Officer is timely in his response to emails and phone calls. [REDACTED] is 

professional, personable, and helpful.

Notification of grant should come directly to the school first. Its hard waiting to see if the program 

will continue to be funded. Staff wait to see if they will lose their jobs. Notification should be 

sooner then when it occurred.

Provide regular communication monthly and respond within 24-48 hours.

[REDACTED] has been extremely helpful. [REDACTED] is available and knowledgeable of 

program policy.

The program office had very little communication with our program. Of the responses we 

received, few were immediate, and fewer still provided useful support. More communication, 

especially in regard to the training on completing the annual report, would have been helpful.

SSS - 2020 - Q25.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your 

program specialist?

a blend of individual and distribution list email

SSS - 2020 - Q25.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process and 

protocols associated with this grant competition?

- Advanced notification to grantee institutions on funding status in order to plan accordingly.

A timeline that allows for sufficient time to implement program services.

Again, awarding the new grants by July 1st would be reasonable.

Again, non-responsiveness is the biggest issue.

Allow programs an opportunity to submit changes when grant isn't completed correctly.

As someone who submitted a grant application for the first time, it was a lot of unknowns and 

not a lot of consistent communication from the department.

Avoid blast announcements, ie list serves.

Award Notifications being sent out earlier would be a huge improvement. Being notified in July 

still would not be ideal, but would be better than finding out at the last minute. Other than that, I 

have been very happy with the process and the information leading up to grant 

application/submission.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 711

Be fair with universities. It seems like programs across the countries are always forced to cut the 

Department some slack on deadlines and processes, when is it reciprocated?

Clearer submission and notification dates.

During the 30 day comment period, the CPPs were not available. The information provided for 

comment was from the 2015 grant competition. The notification of funding date was extremely 

late this cycle. It did not allow sufficient time to plan for either a non-interruption in services to 

students or to prepare for a close out.

First, when program specialists communicate with the program director, the director should 

actually be included in the email and not be sent only to the college president. Sometimes our 

TRIO directors on campus haven't been included in communications. It seems hit or miss who 

gets information. Training information should be advertised via website, emails and multiple 

sources so that the information is widely accessible. People miss out just because they may not 

know.

Follow the actual regulations! When we are given such a short time to write and submit the 

grant once receiving the final regulations, it's totally unacceptable how long it takes to read and 

award grants. It's hard to keep staff, if you're a continuing program, when you aren't notified if 

you will be losing your jobs until August 5th when your grant ends on August 31st. This isn't the 

first year this has happened either!

Follow the legislation in relation to Prior experience points counting for 15% (not less) and 

award grants on time.

Follow the regulations and establish timely and appropriate timeframes for providing info and 

completion of the app.

Following the law in terms of time frame for RFP to submission, and notification. Never in my 20 

years in TRIO have we ever been notified of our award renewal in the time line set out by the 

legislation. We lose great professionals in TRIO every competition year because of the lateness 

of notifications. People need to know that they have jobs so the grant renewal melt is real. 

Just follow the LAW!

From my experience, what was different this time was how student travel was presented in this 

budget. There were a few questions about that part but it was clarified.

Give a better heads up for the time frame for the competition earlier than January of the grant 

year so the competition results can be relayed to institutions before May of the grant year so 

programs know if program jobs are secured or not. ED causes way too much unnecessary 

stress on hard working Americans who are trying to secure academic success for the next 

generation. It's a shame.

Have a clear timeline.

I feel the SSS grant competition was done in a timely fashion and whatever was implemented 

should be continued.

I think if the registration process was cut short, it would greatly improve the grant competition.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 712

I think the process works well. I think protocols are appropriate. This year was different, in that 

we were all dealing with the pandemic.

I think with everything going on in the world, we were left with not a lot of feedback from DOE 

regarding the competition and not a lot of time to have the RFP reviewed. That felt sneaky.

I would recommend timely distribution of application, technical workshops, and award 

notification.

If I may pose a suggestion: What would be the overall possibility to address and identify formula 

SSS funding for Regional designations, For instance, in the Pacific Region, our institutions are 

limited to 1 state community college per island. Is there a possibility to fund these regions 

based on the % of First Generation, Low Income, and Documented Disability populations served 

in our post secondary community college institutions? What would be the possibility to allocate 

separate funding for SSS programs to ALL the community colleges in the Micronesian region, 

as there are only less than 10 community colleges in the Pacific Region which are part of the 

United States of America? Most of the populations in the Pacific Region that are served have a 

very high percentage...estimated over 80% and up are First Generation and Low Income. The 

cluster of the low income population is representative also in elementary, middle, and secondary 

educational systems. The Micronesian Pacific Region represents a small percentage in the 

overall Asian Pacific Region population matrix. Our Pacific Region represent less than 1% at 

.0002% of all grant application submissions for SSS competitions at any given time. Thank you 

for the opportunity to comment on this survey.

If one grant asks a question, please make the answer transparent and available to all - that way 

we are not duplicating questions, receiving different answers, and/or going rogue and hoping for 

the best. Add more search features to the websites so we can research our own questions 

without having to bother the grant administrator.

Indicate earlier when the grant competition RFP will be released and then actually release it 

when previously indicated. The same with awards. If you indicated that awards will be made by 

mid July, then follow though with that. Two weeks notice before a grant cycle is scheduled to 

begin is NOT sufficient!

Keep deadlines.

Like I mentioned in the last box, an update or automatic system or checklist to inform applicants 

where their application is at in the process. You submit in January and hear nothing until 

August ---many seasoned programs lose quality personnel due to the unknown future of the 

funding, this is a disservice to the long-term quality we want to provide.

Make it clear that since the grant was approved, the budget was approved, even though it 

needed to be revised to include the increase, so people could go ahead and spend the funds.

More technical assistance for the opportunity to ask questions, a clearer timeline, and award 

notification process. Ability to review budgets as soon as possible at the start of the new grant 

cycle.

N/A

N/A
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 713

No comment.

no response

No suggestions.

Notification of funded programs first before those in the funding band.

Notified earlier to better plan/prepare

Notify awardees earlier.

Please inform all applicants of their status during the summer. This will allow programs to plan 

action plans depending on the status of their application.

Proposal applicants should be advised as to what the readers will look for. It is a guessing 

game. Directions should be updated in appropriate font and clear language. Forms in the 

application should be explained. More timely response in the award process. Three weeks prior 

to the end of our grant is not professional.

Provide more hands on grant writing training. Do not have the competition during the Christmas 

holiday. Advise successful grantees no later than February of the September start date. 

Automatically award current grantees, who have met all of their standardized objectives and not 

require them to compete every five years.

release instructions sooner so that we have more time to write and prepare and submit

Release the RFP earlier and not over the Holiday when offices are closed, give us 90 days.

Stick to deadlines and move them up sooner. Grant year starts September 1, it would be nice to 

know in May or June if we were successful in the competition for the next cycle.

take into consideration grant amount we can request (budget) pertaining to cost of living 

socioeconomic per each state

The 5 yr old rfp was posted for comment without including the new logic model requirement. In 

my opinion the process violated the intent of congress as all the other scoring sections are 

reflected in the legislation authorizing SSS. The Dept of Ed randomly added a point bearing 

logic model section without authorization from congress. The logic model also added nothing to 

the quality of the programs/proposals.

The application timeframe vs. the submittal deadline is much too close given all other things that 

are involved with getting information from the various offices (i.e. IT) on my campus. I also 

would like to see the redundancy (various sections tend to overlap) addressed in the grant 

application.

The competition was absolutely fine, up to the point of award notification. Notifying the Funding 

Band group weeks before the successful/unsuccessful applicants was perplexing. Really, a 

simple notice to the Community that this would be the procedure would have helped 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 714

tremendously. I understand that the Pandemic and the resulting CARES Act issues complicated 

the issue.

The cpp should be in alignment with the grant's purpose. focusing on career programs 

contradicts to some extent the emphasis on graduating/transferring to a 4-year institution.

The grant notifications need to be send out to the grantees in June/early July.

The only thing to improve is the time of notification for open applications. We could use more 

time.

The review process is inconsistent in rating and should have a next level review and better 

process for addressing concerns. In our case, our grant was rated differently from cycle to cycle. 

Essentially the same proposal with the same criteria received a significantly lower score.

The RFP should not be the exact one used in the prior grant competition. There is a problem 

with the timeliness on the part of DOE regarding the release of the draft RFP, the actual RFP, 

and having a quick turnaround for final application submission. The timeline of grant award 

notifications is too close to the end of the grant period and the potential beginning of the new, if 

awarded. People need time to plan for job loss if the program is not refunded.

The timeline should be revisited to ensure the Dept. can make award notifications in early 

Spring to allow programs to prepare to continue or close.

The timeline was very frustrating. We waited and waited for it to be put out, and then it finally 

came out at a time that was going to be universally inconvenient for people, and then we waited 

and waited and waited some more to be notified of the results. I understand things were difficult 

in the spring, but it was not all related to challenges with COVID.

The timing of notification is so challenging. Staff in existing programs don't know if they have 

continued employment until weeks before end of the cycle and hiring of any new staff is 

necessarily delayed long into the new grant year.

This was an unusual time with COVID-19 so it wouldn't be fair to advise at this time.

Timeliness of grant award notifications for those that received awards.

We were under the impression that the competition would be released October 2019 and it was 

not released until late December. My suggestion is to be mindful about campus's that close for 

the holiday's. There are no offices open for two weeks on our campus during Christmas break 

and that could pose an issue if submission date is around Christmas or New Years.

Supporting Effective Educator Development Program

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

It has a dense and 'old' look and feel. Better navigation would be helpful
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 715

Add a little more color. Its very bureaucratic looking.

Add key timelines: for instance, when to expect grant award notifications, grant reporting timelines, etc. 

A calendar of activities by month would also be helpful

The web site and its information has improved over the last few years. I still find it hard to get information 

on the different program officers and their backgrounds. Having that information on the site would be 

helpful. It also would be helpful if communication to all grantees was more streamlined by the division 

staff so that we were all hearing the same information as well as kept current and update to date on 

modifications. Having current information like this on the web site too would be helpful.

No suggestions

Letting us know it's there and offers some help to us regarding our grant

Improve tags so new site comes up in Google searches, as well as navigation from old pages to new site.

I'm unsure of the reason for asking about the website use. As a grantee, we've not been directed there 

for resources or information. I'm wondering whether there is further utilization that is supposed to occur.

I think the website is functional, which works for me.

I'm trying to access resources and getting the error: Sorry GRADS360° is currently undergoing 

maintenance. .13 Server

There was a time were links were not updated or things were not posted in a timely manner despite 

information from ED that stated otherwise. It would be helpful for links to as up to date as possible and for 

new posting to be posted when the Departments indicates they will be.

How grant reporting process could be improved?

Make it all electronic

Grant officers need to be able to answer questions below a surface level. They need to be able to go 

beyond stock answers and give grantees answers that provide reliable interpretations of the stock 

answers in ways that respond to the nuances of the projects they are leading.

The information below is documented communication with SEED staff in which deadlines were not met 

and show the amount of reporting required for mid-year reporting, renewal competition, and no-cost 

extension. The grant reporting process this year required extensive data collection within short time 

frames that resulted in long waiting periods with little information or assistance provided on how to plan 

for next steps. Timely and consistent communication across all SEED grants and staying on 

communicated deadlines would have helped tremendously. • May 18th submitted +2 renewal 

proposal, which was due 2 weeks after Y3 mid-year SEED reports were due. Both reports required 

extensive data collection and reporting. Were told that we would hear about +2 renewal grants by July 

31, 2020 • 6/26/2020 received email from SEED program officer that no cost extension information 

would come out once Year 4 and 5 renewal decisions are made o We replied 7/1/2020 thanking her for 

the information and informing her that we would be requesting a no cost extension (NCE) • 7/29/2020: 

Received email from program officer that the start date for all SEED FY20 awards will be Oct. 1, 2020 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 716

and while they make every attempt to make awards before that date, they cannot provide a specified 

date of when awards will be made. 'If awarded you should expect notification on or before October 1 

start date.' o 7/31/2020 was advertised date in proposal process grantees should here about being 

awarded a renewal grant for years 4 & 5 o No notification date was set for the new SEED 2020 grant 

during the proposal process o When we asked for clarification if this program officer email was for the 

renewal grants or the new SEED 2020 grant, the program officer responded 'it applies to all awards and 

renewals are awards' o We asked when we would find out about no cost extensions – program officer 

responded 7/30/2020 that information would be sent out mid to end of August No response by USDE 

by these dates • 8/11/2020 – Project director heard from another grantee that they heard we will be 

notified about NCE's by the end of next week (8/21/2020) (which appears to align with what the program 

officer stated 7/30) but that we won't hear about year 4 and 5 renewal grants until at least mid-September 

(this did not come to us directly from US Dept. of Ed.) • 8/19/2020 – Project director emailed SEED 

program officer asking about expanded authorities and if it is safe to operate under the assumption that 

our carry over funds are permitted as long as they align with the scope of work o 8/19/2020 – program 

officer responded that this was correct for the NCE and she would send information on or before Sept. 1. 

Program officer also stated we should know something on or before Sept. 3, 2020 for the year 4 & 5 

renewal (but would let us know if delayed) No response from USDE by these dates • 9/10/2020 –

Project director emailed program officer to find out when we might hear about the NCE or Renewal 

proposal as the school year has started and participating schools and partners are looking for direction 

and we are trying to account for staffing needs (given Sept. 1 and 3 had already past with no updates 

from program officer) o Program officer responded 9/10/2020 stating she's working on NCE's this date 

and will follow up no later than Monday 9/14/2020. But +2 awards will be notified by October 1. o No 

response on 9/14 by USDE • 9/18/2020 (Friday) – Heard from Program Officer with NCE information – 3-

page narrative and budget due by close of business Wed. 9/23/2020 • As of 9/25 around 1:30 p.m., 

we have not heard on NCE or +2 grant; our current grant ends on September 30th so unable to plan for 

October or next steps with the grant project.

Provide more guidance and support for determining how we can determine meaningful metrics for 'highly 

effective.' Help aligning GPRA with project activities and goals. Clearer guidance on the deadlines 

and explanation for the twice-annual annual reporting periods.

We submit two reports - a year-end report and then another in April. This mid-year report is very difficult 

as you are dealing with carry-over funds and projecting expenses. A lot of time is dedicated to reporting. 

Could a year-end report suffice?

Get documents to us sooner. Have our program officer available for mentoring.

Word documents are very difficult to use for data reporting purposes. A system in which the information is 

filled in (Qualtrics, Google Form, etc.) would be much easier to navigate.

Some of the required data extend beyond funded period and require tracking that potentially requires 

diverting funds from serving educators to reporting (e.g., following teachers 2 years beyond their 

participation in professional development). While some of these requirements make sense and are 

doable if the grantee is an LEA or CMO, they are more difficult if an organization is a non-profit providing 

professional learning.

Provide guidelines that are more specific and a lot earlier to provide ample time to complete the 

requirements.

Confirming that I don't believe there is electronic submission of reports via a portal at this time - only use 

of email.

I understand the reporting requirements, but several of the GPRA measures are not very useful in terms 

of grant improvement purposes.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 717

It is complex because timelines do not always match school years

It would be helpful if there was feedback or engagement around our reporting requirements. As it stands, 

it feels like we are completing reports purely for accountability.

Use a portal like NSF

We submit our annual report well before the end of the reporting period. This means we have to also 

submit an additional report. This is a lot of work.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

This is mainly conducted through an outside contractor who seems disconnected from the projects

The ratings offered refer only to services provided directly by Department staff. If we were to rate the 

services of the contracted TA team through AEM, our ratings would be much higher. In the first two 

years of our grant, the grant officer and supervisor provided thoughtful, reliable, and timely answers to 

technical and quality assurance questions. In the last year, it has been the opposite. While the grant 

officer often replies quickly, it is rare to get any reliable or actionable answers. We go long periods with 

no communication when waiting for important information. We are told to expect answers or actions by a 

certain date. That date comes and goes with no action and no explanation. When we inquire again, we 

are told a new date-again that date comes and goes. This was ongoing from early in 2020. We submit 

detailed information with required reports with no feedback. Then, sometime later, we are asked for the 

same information we already provided with a requirement to submit within a day or two. This happened 

repeatedly this last grant cycle. Each time we provide information, we get no feedback and we do not get 

clear answers on how the information will be or has been used to make key decisions and judgements 

about the status of our projects. The biggest issue is the inability to get clear and timely answers on 

issues that are high stakes for grantees. This interferes with the progress of our work, our relationships 

with project participants and partners, and with the conduct of our research. The lack of responsiveness 

to our questions and the lack of understanding of our work makes us wonder if anyone actually reads the 

documents we submit. We go to great lengths to provide the right information in the right way, but the 

lack of feedback leaves us wondering where we are meeting expectations and where we are not. 

Hearing a vague executive summary of where we are or are not meeting the mark in an annual 

conference setting is neither timely or helpful. It feels like being scolded after it is way too late to meet 

expectations that were never communicated in the first place. We hope that, in the future, grant 

officers will be provided enough timely information, enough training and development support, and 

sufficient empowerment to help us put our best foot forward. This needs to include all expectations laid 

out in year one of a funded project, good technical assistance with feedback in that year to establish a 

solid base, and consistency throughout the grant award period. Having expectations change with no 

advance warning, no explanation, and no knowledgeable assistance in the last year of a grant project is 

counter productive and undermines the success of the projects. We also hope that going forward all 

grant timelines will be published at the beginning of each fiscal year and adhered to by Department staff. 

Unclear and constantly moving timelines leave grantees off-balance and undermine the efficient 

progression of their work. The string of delays that occurred this past year created confusion, 

uncertainty, and insecurity for grantees and the people and institutions they serve. This is a critical issue 

to address.

The technical assistance provided by EDD-TA (formerly TQP-TA) is extremely helpful. We participate 

with every session that they have done, including the communities of practice that pair us with other 

grantees within the EED division. We hope that EED continues to fund technical assistance support as it 

is very beneficial.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 718

Allow more than three people to attend the annual summit. Create sessions that deliver on the promise 

to create dialogue among projects. Incentivize projects to truly engage in sharing ideas with each other.

COVID has provided many obstacles. The Department's recommendations have been unclear about 

options available. Would like more interaction with other grantees about COVID challenges and solutions.

Give us a menu of what you offer

The most helpful form of technical assistance would be regularly scheduled meetings with our program 

officer. We would love regular time to talk with her about our progress and make sure we're meeting ED 

expectations.

The staff has been very helpful in providing assistance and clarity about reporting. I don't have any other 

recommendations or requests.

There were many more relevant supports and opportunities to learn about grant management in 2017-19; 

the 2019-2020 period was extremely limited regarding grantee support.

This goals, scope and availability of this assistance is not clear at this time. Our interactions have been 

exclusively about technicalities surrounding reporting. As noted at opening, it sounds like this question is 

specific to USDOE staff. Will note that I believe TA by the third party group was dropped starting last fall 

for many months and that seemed like a loss - they had been helpful in early years of the grant.

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

Midwest and Plains Equity Assistance Center

AEM provided the TQP-TA assistance for our funding category. Their team has provided our TA support 

throughout our grant

Equity Assistance Centers and Regional Laboratories

What is your job role?

Higher Education

Professor

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

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Each page should include all information related to the topic. There is a lot of navigating to different 

places on the website to obtain information that is needed for one content or area.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 719

Monitoring guide for Title II, list of Title II Coordinators from each state.

Make it user friendly (make navigation intuitive, provide more in-depth information, etc.) Develop a 

detailed NRG document similar to the one that was produced after IASA and NCLB.

The USDE website provides little helpful information and the organization is not easy to navigate.

Give professional development on best ways to navigate the site. Webinar, etc. Creating an index of 

topics contained within the site(s) and then following this up with a strong search function.

Not sure. It's just not very intuitive.

I've personally had no problems.

I'm not sure there is general knowledge about the website; I learned of it through a TIIA collaborative 

(SETDA) where ED TIIA reps were guests ([REDACTED] and [REDACTED]) and the tour/orientation 

provided by them about the new website was FANTASTIC. Prior to this, I did not know there was a new 

website.

Difficult to find things when I don't know the specific title of a document. Could provide a search tool with 

broad content rather than specific title. Make search more user friendly.

Update site so that searches yield results for ESSA before NCLB links. Provide more guidance, 

preferably in Q&A format.

I don't think I've ever used the OESE.ED.gov website.

Archive outdated and old information. Difficult to find what is needed easily. Not user friendly.

Offering webinars around specific items such as a webinar of paraprofessional requirements, a webinar 

about proper use of funds for teacher growth etc......

How grant reporting process could be improved?

Each state agency is divided differently. Depending on the information that is being sent, it is sometimes 

emailed to the wrong person in the state agency because of the organizational structure of USED not the 

state.

Provide CSPR data requirements earlier so we can collect the data needed. Provide webinar trainings 

and networking opportunities

Be very specific when the grants are first given out about what will be reported, what criteria should be 

collected in the report, and how it should be reported. Start the reporting process with the end game in

mind.

N/A this isn't my area of responsibility
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 720

there seem to be some ongoing changes; when those changes are finalized a webinar would be great. I 

would encourage working with SETDA and the TIIA collaborative group!

Unknown.

Provide training

The website is very confusing. The questions are worded vaguely and open to too much interpretation. 

An FAQ document addressing each question would be helpful.

Providing more tools to help track Title II expenditures at the SEA level

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

Because I served in this role for approximately one year, my interaction with ED Title II staff was nonexistent. I had the pleasure of participating in the Title II collaborative calls with SEDTA and other Title II 

Coordinators from other states.

It would be helpful if they would offer monthly technical support on a variety of topics. This would enable 

state agencies to participate on topics/areas of need when applicable.

There is no Networking opportunities to collaborate with other SEA Title II Coordinators.

Know exactly how and when we could contact the staff. Also having someone answer the phone, even if 

they say that they can't help but they will put us in touch with the person(s) who can help.

I have not seen opportunities for II-A State Coordinators to meet and/or collaborate through US ED.

I'm satisfied.

I'm not aware of the supports and have not accessed them.

More guidance and Q&As would be beneficial. Continue to include TItle II in the Summer and Winter 

Combined Meetings.

More specific guidance, NRG currently feels like it is more helpful at the LEA level than the SEA level, 

and provides very little on what is not allowable which gives us only our own interpretation of statute to 

fall back on when telling an LEA that an activity or use of their IIA funds is unallowable. While I 

understand the legal implications of USDOE providing official guidance and interpretation of statute, the 

vague guidance we get can be very frustrating.

Something like the T4PA Center for II-A would be nice.

We are unaware of technical assistance opportunities.

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 721

N or D Education TA Center SEDTA

Equity Assistance Centers and Regional Laboratories

[REDACTED]

N or D

Region 5 Lab

Regional Laboratories and Comprehensive Centers

Regional Laboratories/Comprehensive Centers

REL & Comprehensive Centers

REL Central at Marzano Research

Westat

WestEd Comp Center

What is your job role?

Title II Coordinator

Teacher and school leader incentive grants (ESEA II-B-1)

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Ensure old links which are accessed via search either work or reroute to the new links.

Sometimes when you do a google search for the TSL grant you are directed to an inactive link. Maybe 

this is because the grant has been housed under different divisions over time?

Maybe short video clips of testimonials, examples of excellence.

Accessing the pieces of information for guidance. Some links do not access the needed material.

I am able to navigate the website with ease.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 722

N/A

I like the website.

Updates on specific grant programs would be helpful

Continue to provide access to archives which might prove valuable for research purposes.

How grant reporting process could be improved?

Not totally clear if there is a comprehensive TSL study and how it's designed/implemented.

With other federal grants, written communication and training pertaining to evaluation generally came out 

30 days before the grant cycle closed. With this grant, due dates were communicated after the grant 

cycle closed and limited guidance was provided about the documentation that needed to be submitted. 

Feedback about the grant reporting submissions has also been limited.

The directions about the required budget narratives and the budget forms need to be in alignment. It may 

be helpful to provide a template with explanations of specific requirements.

Document formatting could be improved. The assistance is very helpful.

No suggestions for improvement.

The reporting process should be aligned to your program. The reporting template should not have any 

sections that are not part of your grant. ( I had pay for performance elements on my report template but 

we were not paying for performance grant). Reporting time frames should be consistent. Each page of 

the reporting template should have a unique and distinguishable title aligned to what it is going to reflect. 

Any budget/fiscal templates should be in excel not word for ease of use and tracking calculations and 

accuracy

Our program officer is not responsive at all to email and phone calls. It takes several weeks for us to get 

in-touch with her. We had questions that impacted our report and did not have clarifying questions 

answered before the deadline. She will often not have answers and the follow-up time is much longer 

then she tells us it will be, if we even hear back at all. To improve grant reporting it would be helpful to 

have consistency in check-ins with the program officer and someone who is responsive.

While everything can be improved, I don't have the answer to specifically what needs to be improved. I 

like that the Department tries to improve.

Exemplars would be helpful

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

The Department offered a number of workshops and technical assistance. Workgroups on sustainability 

were interactive and very helpful. Annual convenings provided opportunities to learn from peers and 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 723

observe best practices. Our program was able to develop a new grow-your-own teacher partnership after 

attending an ED convening. Very valuable resources!

It is unclear who is included with ED staff. Our answers have been based on support provided by our 

Federal Program Officer and others at the Department of Education. We have also received support from 

the TQP-TA Center (whom we have not included in our responses).

Connect peer grantees as a PLC for improvement and increased knowledge of the grant components 

and best practices.

I have been successful utilizing technical assistance.

I have worked on several grants as a manager and my grantors always provided technical assistance. 

What I found to be useful assistance from this team is the items listed below. However, I felt none of this 

was provided via the TSL. Oversite for program implementations Brainstorming partners Assistance 

with program SWOT Analysis Support with navigating barriers and unpredicted challenges Monthly 

meetings to discuss program implementation

In the last 12 months there has not been much technical assistance offered. I feel like there was a lot 

more offered in the first two years. We would love to connect more with other grantees.

Our needs get met every time we receive technical assistance or have questions. Again, I appreciate the 

department's concern in this area.

The technical assistance team does an excellent job providing supports, training, and exemplars!

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

AEM - [REDACTED] - Logic Models, Sustainability

REL-Midwest

Usdoe

What is your job role?

Principal Investigator

Project Lead-Educational Specialist

Project Manager

Teacher Quality Partnership Program

CORE QUESTIONS
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 724

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

n/a

I find the website user friendly. I do not have any suggestions at this time.

I didn't know there was a site for the grant, so I would say advertisement

website is informative

Keep the information os the website up-to-date

We have no recommendations at this time.

It would be helpful for our long range planning, if the grants forecast page was more long range. It 

appears that this site only shows the grants currently published in the Federal Register.

I think overall is good. I have no problems to find what I want.

How grant reporting process could be improved?

n/a

I found the directions and questions to be very clear. The report was somewhat time consuming, but was 

not difficult to determine what data and information was being requested.

Regular reminders with clear expectations and timelines.

Provide a long term guide/calendar that would let people know what they need to collect and when to 

start that process. Especially in year 1 and 2

place more emphasis on quantitative data and less on visuals, graphics expected

consistency in reporting requirements over the life of the grant. Changing forms and adding new 

expectations every year of the grant makes the reporting more challenging than it needs to be because 

new expectations are not articulated early enough to gather the new data required for new forms. This is 

especially true with the non-federal match portion of the APR and DVS. The expectations have not been 

clear or consistent across the 4 years of reporting to date. Expectations have also changed with Program 

Officers

Usage of recorded webinars.

We appreciated the guidance from Dr. Louis Edwards on what specifics he wanted us to target in the 

APR
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 725

A comprehensive reporting package to share with the PIs would be good. An alignment webinar would be 

helpful.

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

n/a

Loved the recent gatherings and data sharing of grantees. It was very beneficial. The amount of emails 

that came as a part of the trainings were overwhelming and confusing for me. I was not always aware if 

they were general reminders or specific needs. In addition, the platform that is used for presenting is 

prohibitive to my program.

Tech issues with several webinars.

less emphasis on trainings that assume needs are equivalent over all grantees and more information of a 

consultative nature.

I have been frustrated by some of the support sessions that have been designed to support programs. I 

often feel that I'm not getting what I need. There may need to be more differentiated support for those of 

us who are further along than others in certain areas such as sustainability. I often feel that the 

information is more for beginning projects.

The technical assistance we have received this year is markedly different, as we have had a change in 

Program Officer who is not familiar with TQP. The communication style used is brusk and not helpful. 

Answers that come back from the PO are frequently fragmented and only half the question is answered, 

necessitating multiple presses for clarity. Often missives are sent to the entire group assigned to the PO's 

caseload, but the directive/expectation frequently does not apply to the entire group, which causes 

unnecessary work and concern for grantees. After pressing for clarity, grantees are then able to discern 

that the requirement applies only to more recently funded grantees and that the communication was too 

broad, lacking specificity, a reflection of the Program Officer's lack of understanding of TQP funding, it's 

evolution, and awareness of programs in caseload. This has not been the case with previous Program 

Officers who have been clear in their communication and helpful with feedback.

Respond to needs more promptly

No suggestions at this point.

It is great to have opportunities to hear from other programs and have time to work together

Effective interaction between TA and PIs. We all have a very tight schedule to work on our project and 

committed business. I would suggest you may invite successful programs to share their experiences. 

From there, you can collect the feedback from other TQP projects then customize support for different 

project needs.

Primary Ed-Funded Technical Assistance Provider?

Regional Labs
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 726

Not sure. It is the group that is funded to provide different support sessions for SEED funded grants.

REL Northeast

What is your job role?

Non profit director/project director

Faculty

Project Co-Director

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

TQP - 2020 - Q57.6. How can we improve the content and navigation of our online 

resource, in order to make your experience more useful?

n/a

Unable to comment, as this is the first time I have seen the new website.

Please keep information up-to-date

No suggestions at this point.

We have a small staff and appreciate the help and support we receive. It would be helpful to 

have the forms a bit more ahead of time in order to gather the information we need, as we are 

all working off site. Thank you for the good work that you do.

TQP - 2020 - Q57.7. What recommendations would you like to make to the TQP program 

staff to assist you in administering your grant more effectively?

Continue with the good work that you do, especially in this challenging time.

I have found the TQP program staff to be very helpful and professional. They work with us so 

that our project and all involved can be successful. Very impressed with the TQP staff.

I think this is a very challenging question. Although you may be doing a what needs to be done, 

there are often competing priorities that include; day to day business, additional grant 

requirements (we work under 4 different funding sources with their own timelines and 

requirements), the timeline of schools compared to funding sources, continual leadership 

changes on all levels and the unique needs of each program. I appreciate all the support we 

have at this time.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 727

I would like to have more frequent check ins or outreach to discuss how things are going and 

what can be provided to help with the overall monitoring of the grant.

less supervision and more consultation.

One of my program officers did not seem to understand the program well. I However, the 

program officer that I have worked with the longest [REDACTED] is wonderful and always 

provides great service.

Provide more training and technical support to new Program Officers so they can better support 

their programs. An understanding that a big part of their role is technical support and not limited 

to project monitoring to report 'up to leadership' would be helpful.

Responding promptly to questions

We have no concerns at this point.

When I work with Mia the response time is very quick and she goes above and beyond with 

service. My new Officer sometimes does not confirm receiving email messages or answer 

questions within a few days. For documents such as APR that are critical to the future of the 

grant, it would be nice to receive confirmation of receiving information

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

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

I'm new to grants management and navigating the website so I find it difficult due to my unfamiliarity. 

However, I am satisfied with the guidance when i contact the help desk or work with our grant 

administrator. As I become familiar with the website, it's my hope that it will become easier to navigate.

Website gives us all the information that is necessary.

The website is great, I just wish we would have all had better guidance with the COVID situation and 

spending of funds from the CARES act.

Make it easier to find the most updated information

How grant reporting process could be improved?

Im new to the reporting process but as i familiarize myself with it i should be able to navigate and 

complete them easily. The assistance that I have received thus far is excellent .

The grant reporting process works for us.

The reporting for Title III is complex. Some items are more data gathering than grant reporting.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 728

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

G5 is challenging.

I don't see any need for improvement

We don't have interaction with the technical staff.

I think the staff do the best that they can, but sometimes they need clearer guidance so they can help 

answer our qeustions.

What is your job role?

Projects Director

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

TCCU - 2020 - Q20.2. How can TCCU improve the usefulness of the technical assistance 

you receive?

Thus far I have not noticed any need for improvement

Great service.

Again, I think the staff do the best job they can, but they need clearer guidance in order to get us 

the information.

TCCU - 2020 - Q20.5. What can the TCCU do to improve communication with you?

I am very happy with the interactions, communication and responsiveness of my Program 

Officer

no notice of improvement at this time

Communication is very good.

I appreciate the communication from our representative.

I think they do an excellent job, although it would be nice to have an in-person workshop when it 

is possible again.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 729

TCCU - 2020 - Q20.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process and 

protocols associated with this grant competition?

As this grant is a formula, I am unsure

I'm new to the grants process so I don't have an opinion at this time

The protocols set up work very well and do not need to be changed.

Upward Bound

CORE QUESTIONS

Please describe how the Department could improve its website.

Make more user friendly

It is imperative that the Department update the information on its website on a consistent basis.

The US Dept of Ed website for UB has two broken links under the following section: Legislation, 

Regulations, and Guidance Official Final Regulations Amending TRIO Regulations, as published in the 

Federal Register on October 26, 2010. These final regulations amend the Upward Bound program 

regulations. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) - Grants Management Circulars

Make sure information is more up to date, especially with funded programs and current training grant 

offerings (Priority trainings are often out of date, which makes it difficult to plan trainings for the upcoming 

year).

Update information; easier navigation.

All information should be reviewed an updated, as well as refreshed with a more current look, feel, and 

visual presentation of information.

It is very informative but also very dry. I get it that it is a government website, but does it have to 

absolutely stay true to form?

n/a

I think the website is user friendly.

Be more timely in posting changes related to personnel assignments, etc.

Provide up to date information on time-sensitive information.

Other than a possible new look, and easier access to finding Program Officers, it seems to be fine and 

easy to navigate.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 730

The site needs to be more user friendly. Sections for directors or staff then one for parents and students 

then a section for stakeholder. The layout currently makes you hunt for things. Maybe algorithms can 

inform you of what is accessed frequently.

Keeping it up to date would be a great start. Through the COVID pandemic, it was almost impossible to 

find information on what was expected, if spending changes could be made, if the APR would be graded 

different. The Department of Ed was very slow to post any COVID information, leaving UB directors to 

struggle with how to meet the needs of the grant during a pandemic. Prior to COVID, the trainings 

available were still the prior year as well, which became a moot point, as they were all cancelled or move 

online.

Allow the login to be a little easier.

I believe that the DOE website is user friendly and adaptable to users. The website presents updates as 

soon as permitted.

Keeping the website up to date. Update prior year results in a timely fashion.

Improve graphics and web design. More engaging and relevant content.

The biggest obstacle is the update of information. It always seem as if the information is updated late.

It is very text heavy (which is understandable) but it feels more like you're reading an old manual than 

accessing current content on a website

More hyperlinks of titles to access from the first page. It sometimes feels as if stuff is buried behind 

certain pages, making the evidence or information hard to capture with deep research or breakdown o 

what you are looking for.

N/A

N/A

More up to date and more user friendly.

Add live chat for questions

Could have an updated look, but it functions well.

The information is very useful and addresses the needs of the Upward Bound projects.

I do not have anything at this time.

Difficult to find certain regs if our wording is not the same.

Some information is outdated or difficult to find. One thing that would be EXTREMELY helpful is to build 

in a navigable legs & regs for each TRIO program, such as the Cornell Law School has at their website 

(https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/645.42). This makes it much, much easier for people to navigate 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 731

instead of asking them to download and peruse one large document. A more user-friendly version is 

more likely to result in grantee compliance, IMO.

Updates are very slow to be shared.

Provide more information to TRiO program providers to improve services, more recommended practices, 

helpful and related research on improving educational outcomes, etc.

More information. More easily accessible information.

A video explaining how to use the site.

Use of keywords and tags

The website has a number of older links but current links or resources are not always available or 

uploaded quickly. For example I still cannot locate any guidance documents for remaining compliant 

during this pandemic or recommendations for dealing with pandemic. The data and resource links and 

the very bottom of the page are very helpful but there is so much scrolling to get there. The site is not 

the most mobile friendly site.

No comment at this time.

Improve the search function. Remove outdated information.

The Department website,content and information is up to date and easy to find. Assistance is fast and 

courteous. With so many variables and uncertainty in higher education, this is our number one resource 

for our programs. We need to see guidance and encouragement.

Make sure that the latest information is available and take down or archive old information more 

regularly.

update links so you don't get - 404 - Page not found

Website is visually appealing and easy to navigate, but I wish the FAQ section was more relevant and 

really answered the most frequently asked questions we have for our program specialists. It would be 

great to have a FAQ section for funded grantees that is more specific to project operations and 

administration. I know my business office would welcome that addition also and maybe a feature where 

programs could submit questions. It would also be nice because it would be a way to keep the guidance 

from program specialists (which seems to vary greatly) consistent and uniform and stop the repeated 

asking of the same questions.

By keeping it actualized.

There are times that error (404) messages come up with sites that are not updated.

Please have lay people try to find information. There is so much on the website, that the everyday 

informational needs get lost in all of the 'changes to' and the links lead to more information that what is 

program specific.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 732

It could be more intuitive. Consult non-DOE staff when conducting future development of the site.

I know they are very busy but sometimes responding to questions does not happen unless I ask two or 

three times.

N/A

Provide announcements regarding the updates and changes to the site

A little less sterile.

Current real time information about projects and what happening at the Department

It is too text heavy and not appealing.

The website is not very inviting. Information is available, but I couldn't find information about the 

Questions and Answers applicable to use during COVID.

Update the material more regularly,

How grant reporting process could be improved?

Allow more time to complete

It seems like there is always a 'special circumstance' when reporting. I don't know how you could prepare 

for all those unusual situations but the Help Hotline is helpful.

With regard to the Annual Performance Report (APR), it would be extremely helpful to receive 

information on the current year's report ahead of time, especially if there are changes made to the report.

Some of the measures for UB are difficult to obtain and should be removed, such as PSE Remediation. 

This year, scores for proficient at meeting ELA and Math state exams will be nearly impossible to find 

and produce, since students did not take the exam and in my state, they only take it once in 11th grade. 

Some measures we collect seem outdated or unclear why this information is being collected and how it is 

used, for example workstudy, employment and community service. Also there should be a review of 

choices for reason leaving the project. At risk low GPA field should include an option for rising 9th (in 8th 

grade the year before and therefore does not have a GPA; only choice now is unknown). Thank you for 

removing social security numbers from this report.

I think the grant reporting process is generally well done. The report instructions are helpful and the 

report is easy to upload. Some changes I'd like to see include electronic signatures for the Part 1 

signature form, especially in light of COVID-19. I'd also like to see more consistency as to when reports 

go live and are due. The timeline has varied widely from year to year, which is difficult on us. I've been a 

director since 2018 and have had to submit the APR twice in the same calendar year twice. I'd like it to 

be more consistently submitted once per year.

Consistency in the opening and due date of the APR.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 733

Perhaps videos could be added to the section explaining the reporting process, and providing the basic 

responses to the most frequently asked questions section.

It is already improved as compared to previous. However, it could be further made easier for us to 

review the data entered in a format that is easier to read.

n/a

The process has been good on our end.

Streamline questions. Allow for editing of past year's data when a mistake was made. Allow data sets 

gathered to be used for research.

The Annual Performance Report (APR) for Upward Bound continues to change fields which largely 

affects software updates for the electronic database. This often results in information that was input the 

previous year to be 'purged,' and causes it to have to be input every year for the APR. This also prevents 

a timely preparation because of the foregoing problems I cannot begin on completing the APR until I 

know whether or not the fields will change (which is never announced until right before submissions 

open). We have two other TRIO Programs at our institution who have their data ready for submission 

months before the Ed submission website opens because their fields don't change which allows them to 

have all of the information completed ahead of time.

N/A

The process should have a webinar to create base knowledge. In this era we need more than just a set 

of directions to read through.

I am not sure how the data is used, nor am I confident it actually shows how well the program is doing. I 

do believe for post COVID APRs, standardized testing results will hurt my program (not all participants 

were allowed to take the tests), I also believe the strict must enroll by fall after graduation will be a 

struggle, as so many students do not have the necessary electronics to be successful in an online 

program and are choosing a gap year.

This is only my fourth month as the director so I have not submitted any information.

The grant reporting process could improve by continuing to send frequent and immediate updates to all 

grantees.

Overall, I don't mind the APR process. I have the tools to find information and there is enough leeway for 

students I can't track down.

Improve metrics related to performance indicators. Restructure performance reporting to accurately

capture the grantees ability to serve participants.

Educate staff better on how to answer questions about our grant policies and provisions. My program 

officer (ed Spec.) rarely returns phone calls preferring emails that can't always clearly explain my problem 

or discuss solutions unique to my program. Also, my program specialist will request docs, reports with a 

short turn around time especially during busy periods,

A little more time would be encouraging.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 734

Reporting on FAFSA completion is often difficult to verify with students, and the Department should have 

higher accuracy and ability to check completion internally.

Establish a earlier APR release and DUE date for submissions of each program; along with the APR 

webinar training dates.

N/A

N/A

N/A

Provide a template

I question the value of the narrative responses and I do not know how they are used.

None to note

You could do away with the post secondary completion objective. It's not fair to hold us accountable for 

students accomplishments once they are no longer under the projects guidance or influence.

Nothing at this time

The inconsistency of dates to submit the APR. We are cyclical service and it is very difficult to plan when 

the Feds change the due date for the APR. Pushing is back is not appreciated.

I doubt it's possible to change some of the data points required of us; however, collecting student 

employment information is EXTREMELY DIFFICULT some years and it's not clear if we are reporting 

seasonal employment, full year, informal employment (such as babysitting gigs), or what that 

encompasses.

No one explains how the reporting process worked or how to use the website. We just figured it out by 

trial and error. Information on how the data is used could be provided in a report for all to view.

Streamline the APR. Make the questions less ambiguous. Get rid of CPPs.

Free webinars present the most common mistakes.

None at this moment

sharing state, regional or national comparisons regularly

No comment at this time.

Make the information collected relevant to Upward Bound. Collecting data on AP or IB courses 

completed, 'dual enrollment credentials', if they took a non credit college class, have a job, etc. is just 

random data that is difficult and timely to collect and useless for our program and objectives. Only a 

portion of what is submitted on the APR is relevant to the objectives. It is burdensome.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 735

Some of the reporting should have been 'information unchanged'. Reporting year after year that a 

student is 'still' deceased is emotionally taxing. I'm certain that emotions fall very low on importance in 

reporting, but it's worth a try. Also, frequency of changes in enrollment information. If a graduate from five 

years ago has not enrolled in school, they probably haven't in year six. Give grantees the option to 

update but not always need to input.

Send information about the APR with clear instructions early. This year will be hard to report.

Improvements should come in the ability of the program to describe circumstances regarding their 

individual program reports. Programs should have the flexibility to talk about why things happen each 

program is unique although we may serve the same demographic.

Open the reporting process when you state you will and give a sufficient amount of time to complete the 

report. Set dates for the report annually instead of constantly changing it each year.

Our professional organizations gives guidance and training on the APR - the Department of Education 

does not. The instructions are usually pretty clear, but there are usually a couple different interpretations 

of questions/selections that are not clear and it would be helpful to have guidance on how to most 

accurately answer. Could the Dept of Educ host an APR workshop or post FAQ to the website with 

answers? I'm not clear why certain questions are added or taken away or how evaluated (outside of prior 

experience point questions). E.g. what was the purpose of adding the question last year about 

participants served at specific target schools? And those not listed in the 2016 grant? APR submission 

process is relatively straight forward, but I am not always sure if it is used for anything besides PE points.

By responding to my concerns in a timely manner.

Over the past 5 years I have had questions and issues (G5 and clarification) during the APR process. I 

left messages and sent emails to the contact indicated on the site, to gain assistance and never once 

have had a response.

For new directors, it would be useful to have trainings on what data elements they should prepare before 

hand and the submission process

More or better detailed training

N/A

Providing a more detailed guidelines on how to report. For example, how to report students that received 

their associate's degree before their high school graduation (dual credit students).

Suggestions to improve technical assistance Department staff provide?

N/A

I understand they must be very busy, but it would be helpful if the staff was available more often to assist 

with issues, especially when attempting to complete and upload the APR.

The assistance I receive from Department of Education with program inquiries is timely, friendly and 

accurate.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 736

Be more prepared to answer questions. The technical assistance webinars I've been part of have been 

mostly surface level information. Grants that have been around for a while had more difficult questions 

that were not fully addressed. A Q&A to answer more difficult questions would be useful.

I think more pre-recorded videos responding to the basic types of situations and questions would be 

helpful. Also, posted videos of each specialist, Director, Secretary, introducing themselves would be 

great. We don't who we we are speaking with sometimes, and many of us never get to meet our 

Specialist. It would add a bit of a connection between parties.

Have more opportunities for us to dialogue directly with our Programs Officer

n/a

The assistance was decent.

Provide a better way for us to get to know our program officers so that we can develop report and so that 

they can understand the unique challenges of our programs.

I would rather speak to a live person rather than leave a message and wait for somebody to return my 

phone calls.

Keep being available for assistance.

This should be part of the webinars to head off issues in submission.

During this past year, getting any up to date information FAQs, was impossible. The available 

information remained the same while everything else shifted drastically. Not having timely information 

was quite frustrating, and made working with the students much more difficult.

I don't know.

The technical assistance continues to provide a great response times when confronted with questions or 

areas that I need assistance in a timely manner.

Clear program parameters and more regular communication between the DOE and programs.

I've not had any issues that would warrant improvements in technical assistance. I've always had a 

resolution with tech during the APR process.

Improve their relevancy. Provide clear, timely and transparent information.

Staff needs to be more accessible to program directors. My questions are rarely answered in a timely 

fashion unless they need data from us.

Not sure at this time.

We could use a little more guidance in times of need (like the pandemic). We are trying our best to follow 

regulations and serve our students' needs...but we were lost and needed more direction and support 

going into our summer programs.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 737

They would be more helpful if the issues of utmost concern were addressed. We are six months in to the 

pandemic and the Department has responded to some concerns (although it was very late for summer 

programming) and has yet to address other serious issues facing programs related to substantial 

progress and negotiation of objectives due to the pandemic.

Unable to determine at this time.

N/A

I am appreciative of the support the Department Staff provides.

N/A

Live Chat

The FAQs regarding Covid could have been provided much, much earlier. We were about to start our 

summer session when they came out, and we needed the guidance at least 4-6 weeks earlier when we 

were planning. We kept hearing that they were going to be coming out 'next week' but that week was a 

long time coming.

None to note

Nothing at this time

Often when we ask for assistance, we get unhelpful responses, such as ED staff simply re-reading or restating a rule or regulation to us, when we are totally confused on that regulation's wording or how to 

implement the rule. Using situational examples or providing sample work would be very helpful in these 

instances (of course with whatever caveats are necessary to make sure grantees understand examples 

aren't mandates or one-size-fits-all).

It is very difficult to get a response in a timely manner. Often, decisions have to be made in the absence 

of guidance nd we just hope and pray that it is approved. Actions sometimes cannot wait for the decision 

from DOE so it is hit or miss in many cases. PO do not respond to questions, reply to emails and many 

times, they do not know the answers to the questions posed.

They could be more timely and responsive, especially in instances like that COVID-19 pandemic that 

fundamentally impact how our grants can operate. It took months to get any guidance.

Most common questions ask webinars.

Answering in a timely manner

place links of webinars or their recordings on website and share resources and toolkits via email as well

No comment at this time.

They are helpful - no changes needed.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 738

Provide more support to administration and sponsored program accounting. One of my struggles was 

convincing campus admins of what we could and could not do. Just because NSF said it could be done 

didn't mean that Upward Bound couldn't do it.

The department staff do a wonderful job assisting when help is needed.

Just know what they are talking about when providing information to grantees. Sometimes there is 

disconnect to what ED is saying and what programs are doing.

Responses to FAQs that are shared with all project personnel - responses that distinguish between a 

project can do within the confines of regulatory guidance (what is allowable, meets compliance 

requirements) and what the department staff thinks is the best course of action (based on their 

experience with overseeing project operations). Clarity on what decisions are the project director's to 

make, then allowing them to make those decisions, with the benefit of input from the department. Timely 

responses to queries, particularly regarding budget expenditures.

By providing ways to maintain audit readiness in the program/

Better way to ask questions in regards to APR and receive a response. One to one interaction as well.

During 'technical reviews ' Department staff are most often unclear or appear to be reading from a script. 

Come across as unknowledgable and ill-informed.

Technical assistance given by Dana Foreman, our program specialist is EXCELLENT.

Trainings offered more regularly and about possible regulation changes, upcoming APR updates months 

before it opens and training on how to properly look up regulations.

What is your job role?

Director

Director of a de-funded program
Final Report

2020 739

Department of Education Office of Grants Administration

Grantee Satisfaction Survey 

CUSTOM QUESTIONS

UB - 2020 - Q26.2. How can Upward Bound improve the usefulness of the technical 

assistance you receive?

N/A

It would be important to make sure there are people available for assistance, especially when 

there are changes to the APR each year.

More clear information about how this year of facing the pandemic will affect renewal grants 

Prior Experience Points, in terms of falling short of meeting program objectives.

More consistency in responsiveness, scheduling, and understanding of regulations.

consistency, clarity and promptness

Conduct more technical assistance sessions. Add technical assistance topics via videos to the 

website.

With COVID-19 much is more flexible and the conversations are brief but informative

n/a

quicker response to the questions

Help program officers be more consistent in the way they provide guidance. Empower at the 

lowest possible levels so that decision making does not have to always be made at higher 

levels. This slows things down. The pandemic illustrated how hobbled we were in 

implementing program changes because of indecision/slow guidance on the part of the 

Department of Ed.

N/A

Again, availability is always a plus to assist others.

Listen more to the practitioners and stop asking us the same questions over and over again. If 

we have a summer program that costs 1/3 of our budgets stop asking us why we have so much 

money left. This hampers our consecration on more valid forms of support to our students. It 

also needlessly involves staff on our campus who have NO idea of what we are doing day to 

day. This causes mistrust and questions regarding our regulation given authority as directors of 

our projects who the department of Ed must approve!

During this past year where everything was changing, the message remained the same. 

Therefore the usefulness diminished.

Not applicable
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 740

I believe they are great at their response time and are performing a great job.

Be more timely

Raise the bar on quality

Be timely in responding to individual concerns. I am still waiting to see if my carry-over was 

approved. The request was due back in the summer, and we are almost in November, and I am 

still waiting for approval.

I have a new (to me) Program Specialist who has been excellent with communications- very 

responsive and rational. I have had others that are the opposite, so my previous answers are 

mitigated with both experiences in mind. But even with my current contact's professionalism and 

timeliness, there are still issues [REDACTED] is unable to address. They lay with Department 

leadership.

N/A

N/A

N/A

NA

Just in the timeliness in getting important information out to the community, such as was the 

case with the Covid FAQs.

None to note.

nothing at the moment

When asking questions the answers are usually non-usable. They will not assist you in making 

a decision and say to read your regs. I have read my regs and still have a question where do I 

go for a concise answer.

Again, we often receive unhelpful responses where ED staff simply re-read legs & regs to us or 

the technical wording from whatever was distributed to grantees. Please assume that we know 

how to read, and that when we are asking for clarification, we need something potentially 

reworded in a more helpful or concrete manner. It feels condescending and like there is some 

sort of mandate from higher up where employees are specifically instructed to only reiterate 

verbatim what is distributed in official correspondence.

Quicker and more timely responses.

Timely responses.

Frequently Q & A
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 741

n/a

Many times delays in posting keep us unaware of the administrations current objectives. For 

example: During this pandemic it was months before the Department was given enough 

information so that they could respond to our collective questions.

No comment at this time.

n/a

It was fine.

The times I have needed technical assistance , the help has been immediate and very helpful. 

Keep the timely response and the professionalism.

Reduce some of the regulations where students services are concerned.

Most information that has been received is reactive and late in regards to program timelines. 

UB/ED assistance needs to be more proactive and timely.

Improve response time to questions, make a clearinghouse of Q & A from existing projects 

Provide written replies to queries (instead of phone calls) so there is documentation for business 

office, successors, auditors

By approving request in a timely fasions. I have a June 1 strt date, submitted budget on 6/8 and 

have not received approval as of yet.

Be more timely and consistent in responses. It takes weeks to get an email back, if at all.

Some guidance is received last minute which is problematic.

UB - 2020 - Q26.5. What can Upward Bound do to improve communication with you?

Communicate more regularly

GAN usually come out very late. It would be helpful to know this at least one month before the 

end of the project year.

It would be helpful if the communication occurred more often. I can say, as an Upward Bound 

director, I was very confused by what the Department would allow our program to do throughout 

the COVID-19 pandemic. There was very little information and then one of the most important 

areas, especially for our program, which is located in a large urban area, it would have been 

very helpful to provide students with meals during our virtual summer program, but this was 

never approved. I also felt some policies should have been adjusted during this very difficult 

time, especially the allowance to purchase gift cards for our students.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 742

Release GAN sooner.

Consistency in timeline of GANs, APR due dates, etc. If this was relatively consistent from year 

to year, this would help program specialists with timely notification and the ability to answer 

questions. I often feel like program specialists are waiting for GANs to get cleared, etc. which 

hurts their ability to communicate quickly and efficiently.

I am thankful for my new program specialist who is great with communication. Previous 

program specialists were either unreliable in communication, or extremely vague in 

communication.

Monthly/weekly individualized chats with Programs would be great.

Have more time at conferences for Program Officers to speak to the UB community and 

possibly get to know us in smaller breakout groups.

n/a

Quicker response time.

Keep us informed. Even if you don't have an answer, please respond and tell us you don't have 

an answer. Provide guidance on how to proceed within the regulations while waiting for 

guidance in times of crisis.

Inform project directors ahead of schedule if there is a change that will affect their programs.

To do it on a consistent basis (monthly).

Be more communicative. Newsletters have stopped and when we did get them y tv he 

informations was dated.

It is difficult to plan for the next year when the GAN is 'delivered' a few weeks before it starts. It 

is also difficult to plan when there is no clarity or consistency with what is allowed as a roll over. 

This past year with the CARES act, it was also frustrating how late the information that the the 

UB grant fell under CARES, and then the ability to actually use the funds to benefit the students. 

That as a Director I am expected to continue business as usual, while not having face to face 

interaction with participants has made the position very difficult. That participants do not have 

the necessary technology to be successful, and how that technology can be distributed is also 

frustrating. I believe the Dept of Ed could have really made a difference ins participants lives 

during COVID, instead everything happened too late, and not in a way that was in the best 

interest of the participants.

Provide more information on proper procedures.

Upward Bound communicates with me in a timely basis on all updates, within the Department of 

Education as it relates to the program.

The turnaround time needs to be better. I shouldn't have to follow up every week, for weeks, 

with no response to my questions/requests. I'm trying to serve my students and get them 

resources, experiences, etc. Sometimes my students' needs are pressing and waiting 4 weeks 
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 743

for an approval doesn't meet deadlines of vendors/businesses I am working with, or with the 

objectives I am trying to meet. A return email that states, I will respond to your inquiry within 72 

hours would be better than the silence I am getting both from my program officer and the 

supervisor to the program officer for weeks.

Relationships, rapport.

More communication, more guidance and more support during tough times.

More frequent webinars/team meetings on updates and concerns.

Have more verbal communication with grantees when there are sensitive topics needing 

detailed clarification or written requirements.

N/A

N/A

N/A

More locations for information such as open and close dates

Our Program Officer, [REDACTED], is great. [REDACTED] answers emails very promptly and 

efficiently., and is always friendly and courteous.

I am very satisfied with communication from the Department.

Nothing at this time.

Being notified the week before the grant is to be concluded cause undo stress to Upward Bound 

staff. My Program Officer very rarely communicates with me. I have asked questions on 

different occasions and later found out [REDACTED] gave me incorrect information. 

[REDACTED] also does not respond to emails either.

I think this is improving; some program specialists seem to not reply very quickly and it can take 

months to receive responses on routine items (such as budget approvals). I'm not sure if this is

due to a lack of staffing/overworking folks on your end . . . give them a raise! I am under the 

impression they are overworked and underpaid.

PO I had did not ever respond to my emails for over one year. Ultimately I was given a different 

PO who did respond more readily. If PO does not return calls, respond to emails and 

communicate with program directors, how can we accomplish goals and do so in the manner 

expected?

Provide more time when making requests. Respond more quickly.

Quarterly communication.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 744

Respond in a timely manner

Provide a foundation for programs, districts and states to share findings, best practices and 

discuss issues regularly.

No comment at this time.

Other than receiving the GAN, communication is always timely.

Now we have a new program officer that seems to be better at communication and responding 

to emails.

Timing of the GAN was more frustrating for the campus than it was for me. Our campus didn't 

understand why a document that was dated to begin on 9/1 arrived after 9/15.

Ensure communication is timely and clear. Communication should answer questions and not 

leave us with more questions.

Quicker responses.

Past specialists have been very lacking in communication. New specialist seems to be better, 

only time will tell. Specialists change and things fall through the cracks often with 

communication.

During the pandemic, what little guidance came out was released (for the most part) after the 

fact and the dramatic overhaul of our programs went unacknowledged; i see the same 

happening with performance objectives for 20-21. Will the Dept wait until the year is completely 

done to tell us we could have served fewer students? Or not worried so much about 

standardized test scores? It would be helpful to know now so we can divert much-needed 

energy and resources to the most critical items and not waste time, effort and money on 

objectives that may be revised.

Answer my request in a timely fashion. It should not take months to receive an answer.

Be more timely and consistent in responses

More communication from the Program Specialist. Sometimes have to email two or three times 

before an answer is received. I have also tried calling my Specialist a few times and have never 

reached [REDACTED] via phone or received a return call.

Our PS rarely responds to emails / calls.

Understand problems with COVID but more timely communication to help serve the families and 

students

Wish we would have received guidance on how to proceed during/after COVID especially for the 

summer program. I was able to communicate with State and other Program Directors to make it 

work.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 745

UB - 2020 - Q26.6. What is your preferred way to communicate regularly with your 

program specialist?

any

UB - 2020 - Q26.7. How would you advise on improving the overall process and protocols 

associated with this grant competition?

Allow more time for writing grant

Allowing more notice for grant writing. It usually backs into the holidays which is a very busy, 

stressful time. I would prefer having about 3 months to write - not one - considering there are so 

many people involved in the process, it's hard to wrangle everyone because many admin at my 

institution take time off in November / December so it's very stressful to get everything done on 

time.

At this time, my only suggestion would be to make the announcements sooner for the grant 

winners, to assist the programs in future planning.

Be clear how much of our narrative has to spend time describing both in person and remote 

services, if we are still not clear how schools will operate.

Consistency in release time, submission due date, length of time application is open. This 

shouldn't change wildly from year to year or grant cycle to grant cycle.

Continue to allow avenues for input from current grantees regarding processes and protocols.

create more opportunities for us to interact in small groups so that it is feasible for our Program 

Officer to meet us but to also get her work done which I understand is considerable.

Earlier proposal submisssion deadline.

Enough time to be able to produce a quality grant. More technical workshops on the grant 

writing process.

Get rid of the funding band. Rather, award down the slate and reserve some money for 

contested grants. If that reserved money is not used, fund further down the slate later.

Give a very detailed explanation as to what type of 'rubric' you are looking for in the Needs 

Section because this seems to be the area where we lose points.

Have materials available early enough to utilize.

Having a less subjective panel reading grants and very specific training of readers. The panels 

are no longer monitored or differences are not being refereed.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 746

I believe that what are allowable expenses needs to be addressed and revised. Putting 

technology into the hands of students would make a huge impact on their future, and make it 

possible to participate with UB in the age of COVID

I don't know.

I would advise that webinars for any or all updates for the grant competition be held for project 

directors.

I would improve the program by providing information a year before it is due.

I'm not sure, as I am still in my current 5 year cycle. Another director at CCC writes the grants 

for TRIO.

Increase the amount of awards

Increase the level of professionalism in communicating with us. Be timely in response to our 

questions and concerns. Try to be more emphatic to directors who are having difficultly beyond 

our control running our program. Act as an agent with our campus budget office, administration, 

etc. when directors need clarity on grant administration.

Just more time to develop a proposal

More bullet point summary of key details.... instructions are very long.

More time between the release of the proposal and the submission deadline. Broadening the 

options for Competitive Preference Priorities.

N/A

N/A

n/a

N/A

NA

No suggestions.

None to note.

Not sure at this time.

nothing at this time

Notification needs to be in a more timely manner.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 747

Please make sure it is timely, and please consider the calendar with grant competitions; it's 

cruel to assign a grant competition to occur anytime during the November/December holidays 

as many stakeholders/partners cannot provide data during that time. (Ditto APR; I know you 

didn't ask for it here, but rotating APR dates would be nice. It seems like UB almost always gets 

hit with APR for the holidays, and therefore the 30 day deadline is in reality much shorter since 

most of our support offices are closed down for a large part of those months).

Programs like these are very much needed in lower income areas and educational deficient 

cities. Bands of funding selections should take that into consideration.

Provide all information on the process as months as possible before the deadline. Offer webinar 

with details soon afterwards.

Provide an adequate amount of time for writing. Do away with silly layout rules or provide a 

template we can fill in. Get rid of Competitive Preference Priorities. Do away with the What 

Works Clearinghouse unless it is going to be properly updated. Avoid logic models because 

they become too large and hard to read given the complexity of Upward Bound.

Provide timeline estimates so projects can prepare and start planning ahead.

Release RFP and notification of award at original designated times. Postponing both dates 

creates a lot of unnecessary stress and uncertainty.

Release slate much earlier that after the final days of programs fiscal year or within it's last few 

hours. Many times the funded band is released even later. It is difficult to provide for program 

continuance especially for programs in their busiest times to delay announcements or award 

notifications. Could we move competitions to occur within a year of a program closing?

Set clear expectations that are reasonable to accomplish and follow guidelines and instructions. 

Provide information timely so programs can have adequate time prepare and write, and 

requests feedback on grant competition proposal before final draft is released for competition.

Simplify the objectives - It is hard to meet the college going objective when students who did not 

receive a hs diploma or had to take off a year after high school for medical, etc. can never be 

counted as a success even if they go on to obtain a 4 year degree. Why not just say anyone 

with a degree 6 years out is a success instead of complicating it and requiring immediate or 

deferred enrollment and a hs diploma in order for a student to count as a success. These are 

students with major hurdles. Fewer technicalities in the objectives please.

Take into consideration our limitations with the COVID19 crisis. For example, recruiting and no 

state standardized testing.

The last two cycles have had awful timing. The 2012 grant was due at the very beginning of the 

semester-- which took away our Christmas break and the 2017 was due the Monday after 

Thanksgiving with a very short time before the APR was due. Trying to balance supporting 

students and other day to day tasks made both of these cycles very difficult. I do not know what 

an ideal time is, but the only other time that could be worse would be in the middle of a summer 

program.

The process and protocols are adequate. Maybe it can be made more simple by making it less 

technical.
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 748

The upcoming grant competition should be put on hold with existing programs receiving a 1 year 

continuation award to help offset the damage to the program and participants during COVID-19. 

APR reporting for this year counts toward prior experience and with all existing grantees in 

jeopardy of not meeting expectations will ED have a plan to help.

Timeliness, Timeliness, Timeliness. Too often, information is released late and over college 

breaks creating a rush for processing and submission for short deadlines.

-webinars early in the process - particularly since data collection from high schools is likely to be 

difficult because of all the COVID disruptions, test cancellations. Will need indicators be 

changed? - release of CPPs (if any) before the final RFP comes out; or indication of likely 

topics -understanding of how COVID is going to hinder the ability of institutions and 

communities to provide the kind of support they may have in the past -clear choice in 

application whether the applicant is designating a target AREA for services or target SCHOOLS 

for services
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 749

Appendix D: 

Explanation of Significant

Difference Scores
Department of Education Office of Grants Administration Final Report

Grantee Satisfaction Survey

2020 750

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.