United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Committees

GRANTS 

MANAGEMENT 

Grantees’ Concerns 

with Efforts to 

Streamline and 

Simplify Processes 

July 2006 

 

GAO-06-566 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

July 2006

GRANTS MANAGEMENT 

Grantees’ Concerns with Efforts to 

Highlights of GAO-06-566, a report to Streamline and Simplify Processes 

congressional committees 

At least 26 federal entities

distribute grants, often with 

differing administrative

requirements. As a result, grantees

may be diverting resources from

program objectives to comply with 

varying administrative

requirements. Congress, attempting 

to reduce this inefficiency, passed 

the Federal Financial Assistance

Management Improvement Act of

1999, commonly referred to as 

P.L. 106-107. It required the Office

of Management and Budget (OMB)

to ensure that agencies streamline

processes, develop common

systems, and consult with grantees; 

it also required GAO to evaluate the 

law’s effectiveness. In response, 

this report discusses aspects of 

grant administration that grantees 

identified as inadequate to meet the 

act’s goals and on which further 

action was needed. GAO reviewed

grantee comments on changes 

needed, obtained views from

grantee associations and users of 

the Web portal called Grants.gov, 

performed detailed site visits at

selected grantees, and obtained

views of OMB.

What GAO Recommends

OMB should ensure that grantees’ 

views are obtained as approaches 

are developed. Further, Congress 

should consider reauthorizing the 

act beyond its November 2007

sunset date to ensure that crossagency initiatives progress. OMB 

said that it will continue working

with agencies to further streamline 

grant administration and seek 

grantees’ input. 

While some progress has been made since GAO issued its report last year on 

interagency reform initiatives (GAO-05-335), federal grantees continue to 

identify areas where the goals of P.L. 106-107 have not yet been met. These 

include continued lack of standardization and continued inefficiencies in 

grant administration across agencies and technological difficulties with 

implementing Grants.gov, the Web site where grantees can find and apply for

grants. Grantees report they continue to need to use different application, 

reporting, and payment systems, and definitions differ across agencies. 

Further, some inefficiencies continue to exist, such as agency grant 

processes not aligning with typical grantee business practices. In addition, 

problems using Grants.gov, such as search engine problems and complex 

registration practices, have caused grantees frustration as they have used the 

site for identifying and applying for grant opportunities. The Grants.gov 

Program Management Office has taken actions to address some of these 

problems and has plans for further improvements. 

Examples of Grantee Concerns Related to P.L. 106-107 Goals 

Stage Areas of concern grantees cited 

Announcement 

stage 

Application 

stage 

Award stage 

Postaward

stage

• Operational problems with Grants.gov search function.

• Unaware of Grants.gov Web site.

• Grants.gov software not compatible with some computers. 

• Grants.gov registration process frustrating. 

• Delay in award notification. 

• Repetitive “certifications and assurances” for each grant. 

• Multiple reporting and payment systems that are different. 

• Federal agency processes not aligned with grantee business 

 processes. 

Source: GAO. 

Grantees GAO interviewed were concerned that, while the three federal 

cross-agency initiatives underway to streamline grant administration—

Grants.gov, the Grants Management Line of Business, and the cross-agency

workgroups—were moving forward, progress to date has been inadequate. 

Grantees identified two specific areas where the management of P.L. 106-107

initiatives contributed to the lack of progress. They pointed out that 

inadequate ongoing communication with grantees before decisions on 

changes were made resulted in poor implementation and prioritization of 

initiatives. Grantees also said lack of clear objectives and a public time line 

for the reform process sometimes prevented them from understanding the 

www.gao.g scope and timing of planned changes. ov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-566.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Stanley J. 

Czerwinski at (202) 512-6520 or 

czerwinskis@gao.gov. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3 

Background 4

Grantees Report That, Despite Federal Efforts to Streamline, 

Excessive Administrative Burden Remains 12 

Grantees Report That Inadequate Communication and Lack of a 

Clear Schedule Have Resulted in Slow Progress 21 

Conclusions 26

Matter for Congressional Consideration 27 

Recommendation for Executive Action 27 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 27 

Appendix I Detailed Scope and Methodology 29 

Appendix II Examples of Specific Areas Grantees Identified 

As Needing Standardization and Streamlining 33 

Appendix III Some States Have Taken Actions That Address 

Their Grant Administration Issues 34 

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 37 

Table 

Table 1: Description of Nonstate Grantees from Site Visits 30 

Figures 

Figure 1: Grant Life Cycle 7 

Figure 2: P.L. 106-107 Initiatives Orgnization Chart 10 

Page i GAO-06-566 Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
Abbreviations 

DUNS Data Universal Numbering System 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

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

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

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

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

reproduce this material separately. 

Page ii GAO-06-566 Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

July 28, 2006

The Honorable Susan M. Collins 

Chairman 

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Tom Davis 

Chairman 

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Government Reform 

House of Representatives 

About one-fifth of the federal budget—over $460 billion1

—was distributed 

in fiscal year 2004 in grants to various entities, such as state, local, and 

tribal governments, nonprofit organizations, and colleges and universities. 

Grantees, particularly those that obtain grants from multiple federal 

agencies, must comply with the different requirements and systems that 

agencies have established, which can result in directing excessive 

resources to meeting varying administrative requirements rather than 

toward the purpose of the program. While these requirements are 

generally intended to ensure accountability, Congress became concerned

that these administrative requirements may be duplicative, burdensome, or 

conflicting and could impede the cost-effective delivery of services at the

local level. In response, Congress passed Public Law 106-107, the Federal

Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999. The act

(commonly referred to by the grants community as P.L. 106-107) required 

that federal grant-making agencies streamline administrative requirements 

and engage and involve grantees in developing and implementing their 

 1

As reported in the Consolidated Federal Funds Report at 

http://www.census.gov/govs/www/cffr.html (downloaded Mar. 10, 2006). 

Page 1 GAO-06-566 Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
reform goals and implementation plans.2

 It specifically requires that the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) work with agencies to establish 

common applications and systems and uniform rules for federal grant 

administration. The act is scheduled to sunset in November 2007. 

P.L. 106-107 also directed GAO to assess the effectiveness of the reform 

efforts and to obtain input from state, local, and tribal governments and 

nonprofit organizations. In April 2005, we completed an evaluation that 

focused on efforts federal grant-making agencies had made to streamline 

and develop common processes for grantees and the extent of 

coordination among OMB, the agencies, and potential grant recipients.3

This second report examines how selected grantees view the federal 

streamlining effort. Specifically, we will identify 

• aspects of the various federal reform efforts and initiatives that grantees 

identified as inadequate to meet the goals of P.L. 106-107, in particular 

simplifying federal financial assistance application and reporting 

requirements; and 

• grantees’ views on further action needed to standardize and streamline 

grant processes for grantees. 

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

requirements and criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of agency and 

governmentwide reform efforts. We then reviewed the common plan 

developed initially by 26 grant-making agencies, and we obtained and 

reviewed the annual progress reports that the act required each agency to

submit to OMB and Congress. We met with officials from OMB and with 

lead officials from the various cross-agency work groups to discuss 

ongoing reform and streamlining efforts. To get the perspective of 

grantees, we reviewed the public comments that were received in 

response to proposals for the initial, multiagencywide plan. We also 

interviewed staff from several associations representing different 

communities of grantees to identify issues that their memberships have 

expressed about federal grant management process reform and to identify 

 2

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

loans, loan guarantees, insurance, interest subsidies, and other forms of assistance. Pub. L. 

No. 106-107, §4. The current streamlining efforts have focused on grants and cooperative 

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

cooperative agreements and, for simplicity, refer to them as grants. 

3

GAO, Grants Management: Additional Actions Needed to Streamline and Simplify 

Processes, GAO-05-335 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 18, 2005). 

Page 2 GAO-06-566 Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
states that were undertaking grant process management reforms of their 

own. We analyzed results from surveys of users of the Grants.gov Web

portal, one of the initiatives implemented so far. 

To get a better working-level understanding of grant management issues, 

we visited and interviewed officials at 17 grantee organizations—4 state 

governments, 3 tribal governments, 2 county governments, 3 municipal 

governments, 2 nonprofit organizations, 2 higher education institutions, 

and a nonacademic research institution. This selected set of grantees 

represented a range of grantee sizes, levels of administrative 

sophistication, and types of grants being applied for. These discussions 

enabled us to gain an in-depth perspective on the concerns of grantees 

from different communities of grant recipients, and to understand how 

grantees manage an array of grants from different programs and agencies,

a perspective not obtained from individual program reviews. Although we 

cannot project these results to all grantees, the comments obtained help

inform the issue of the type of difficulties that grantees must address. 

These discussions also enabled us to identify grant reform initiatives 

undertaken by selected states that could have potential to reduce grantee 

administrative burdens. For more on our methodology, see appendix I. We 

conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards from June 2005 through May 2006. 

While some progress has been made, federal grantees continue to identify

significant areas of grants administration where the goals and

requirements of P.L. 106-107 have not yet been met. These concerns fall 

into two groups: (1) the continued lack of standardization and other 

inefficiencies in grant administration across agencies; and (2) the 

difficulties related to technological implementation of the Grants.gov Web 

portal, a Web site at which grantees can find grant opportunities across 

government agencies and can apply for many of them online. Grantees 

told us that federal grant-making agencies still use different application, 

reporting, and payment systems, and use different definitions on the grant 

application forms. Grantees also identified other inefficiencies that 

continue to limit the effectiveness of grant programs, particularly federal

procedures that do not consider the manner in which grantees conduct 

their grant administration. For example, when federal processes are not 

aligned with typical grantee business practices, key documents do not 

flow back and forth from the federal grantor agency and grantees in an 

efficient manner. The most significant progress in the area of technology 

development has been the implementation of Grants.gov, but grantees 

report that the Grants.gov technology nevertheless has areas needing 

Results in Brief 

Page 3 GAO-06-566 Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
improvement. Specifically, grantees we interviewed were not satisfied 

with the performance and usefulness of the Grants.gov search, or find, 

function, which was intended to make it easier for them to identify grant 

opportunities. Some grantees told us that the Grants.gov find feature was 

not any better than previous methods of searching; others were unaware 

that Grants.gov had a find capability at all. Additionally, some grantees 

with experience using Grants.gov to apply for federal grants have had 

difficulties and reported their considerable frustration with its 

requirements, such as the complex and time-consuming process for 

registering to use the Grants.gov apply system. The Grants.gov program 

management office has worked at addressing some of these problems, for 

example by improving the search capability in December 2005, and has 

plans for further improvements. 

Grantees we interviewed were concerned that, while the federal crossagency grant management reform initiatives were moving forward, 

progress to date has been inadequate. They identified management issues 

related to implementation of the P.L. 106-107 initiatives that have 

contributed to the lack of progress. For example, they reported that they

would like to have more communication with work groups before 

decisions about grant administration changes are made to better prioritize 

and implement initiatives. Grantees also said lack of both clear objectives

and a public time line for the reform process sometimes prevented them 

from understanding the scope and timing of planned changes. 

We are suggesting that Congress consider reauthorizing P.L. 106-107 to 

make certain that federal agencies have clear requirements to continue 

these efforts. We are also recommending that OMB ensure that the groups 

leading the streamlining efforts identify and implement approaches to 

obtaining grantees’ input as policies and procedures are being developed.

In commenting by e-mail on a draft of this report, OMB wrote that it will 

continue working with agencies to streamline grants administration and to

make further progress toward achieving the P.L. 106-107 goals, and it will 

continue to seek input from the grant community. 

The process of distributing federal assistance through grants is 

complicated and involves many different parties, both public and private, 

with different organizational structures and sizes as well as varying 

missions. Federal grants are disbursed and managed by 26 different 

federal agencies as well as by some smaller federal entities, and grants are 

used to implement about 1,000 different federal programs. Grant programs 

have different objectives and strategies—reflected in the application, 

Background 

Page 4 GAO-06-566 Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
selection, monitoring, and reporting processes—that are intended to 

assure accountability to the federal agencies. 

The universe of potential applicants for grants is also large and varied. It 

includes governments from the smallest school district to the largest state.

According to information from the Census Bureau and the Department of 

Interior, there are approximately 88,500 units of government in the United

States, including states, tribal governments and county governments, 

municipalities, townships, school districts, and various other special 

purpose governments.4

 Grant recipients also include nonprofit 

organizations, described in one study as ranging from small organizations 

with annual budgets less than $25,000 to multi-million-dollar health 

organizations.

5

 We reported in 2005 that over 460,000 nonprofit

organizations filed tax forms in 2002.6

 Some grants are also provided to 

individuals.7

 While not all of these entities actually apply for grants, they 

are potentially eligible and do reflect the considerable diversity of grant 

recipients. The grants process is further complicated because state 

agencies may act as both grantees soliciting federal grant resources and as

grantors distributing federal funds to other grantees. Thus states 

redistribute significant amounts of the federal aid they receive to local 

governments and nonprofit agencies in their states. 

Moreover, the grants themselves come in a wide variety of types and sizes. 

Grant types cover a broad spectrum from those narrowly targeted to fund 

a program to those that are broadly targeted and allow the grantee to 

make decisions regarding how funds are used. Mandatory grants are 

awarded under a program where the authorizing statute requires the 

award to be made to each eligible entity under the conditions and in the 

 4

Census Bureau, 2002 Census of Governments GC02-1(P) (Washington, D.C.: 2002) and 

Department of Interior Quick Facts, http://www.doi.gov/facts (downloaded Mar. 6, 2006). 

5

Lester M. Salamon, “The Resilient Sector: The State of Nonprofit America,” Snapshots, no. 

25 (2002). 

6

GAO, Tax-Exempt Sector: Governance, Transparency, and Oversight Are Critical for 

Maintaining Public Trust, GAO-05-561T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 20, 2005). An entity that

believes it meets the requirements set by Congress must apply to the Internal Revenue

Service to obtain tax-exempt status. Entities that are not required to apply include those 

that are not private foundations and that have gross receipts of less than $5,000 as well as 

churches and church-affiliated entities. Churches are potentially eligible for federal grants. 

7

See, for example, the National Endowment for the Arts’s “Literature Fellowships:

Translation Projects” or the National Endowment for the Humanities’s Fellowships and 

Faculty Research Awards. 

Page 5 GAO-06-566 Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
amount (or based on the formula) specified in statute. Discretionary 

grants are those in which the federal awarding agency may select the 

recipient from among all eligible recipients, may decide to make or not 

make an award based on the programmatic, technical, or scientific content 

of an application, and can decide the amount of funding to be awarded to

each recipient. Grants can be small, such as the $1,100 National Science 

Foundation Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Grant, or large, 

such as California’s $3.7 billion Temporary Assistance to Needy Families 

block grant.

While there is substantial variation among grants, they generally follow a

life cycle as shown in figure 1: announcement, application, award, 

postaward, and closeout. Once a grant program is established through 

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

requirements, a grantor agency may impose additional requirements on it. 

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

opportunity through an announcement, and potential grantees must 

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

identifies successful applicants or legislatively defined grant recipients and 

awards funding. The postaward stage includes payment processing, 

agency monitoring, and grantee reporting, which may include financial and 

performance information. The closeout phase includes preparation of final 

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

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

closeout. 

Page 6 GAO-06-566 Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
Figure 1: Grant Life Cycle 

Grantees have different approaches for managing their grants across their 

own internal subdivisions or departments. Grantees we visited had a 

variety of grant administration structures and degrees of centralization 

that were not dependent on the size of the organization or the number of 

grants they received. In a more decentralized structure, each department 

within the organization managed most aspects of its grants, including 

financial accounting and reporting. For example, in a municipality the 

police department might deal with federal Department of Justice grants; 

Page 7 GAO-06-566 Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
the health department might deal with Environmental Protection Agency

grants; and the school administration might deal with Department of 

Education grants. Conversely, a more centralized structure might have a

single grants office that coordinated all aspects of grant administration 

across the organization, including final submission of applications and 

general oversight of reporting and accountability compliance. Even for 

grantees we visited with a decentralized structure, some amount of central 

grant oversight was generally present. 

P.L. 106-107 was passed in response to the complicated nature of the grant 

process. To address these issues, the act required OMB to direct, 

coordinate, and assist federal agencies in establishing common 

applications, systems, and uniform rules to improve the effectiveness and 

performance of federal grants with the goal of improved efficiency and 

delivery of services to the public. For example, under P.L. 106-107 

• OMB is required to direct, coordinate, and assist federal agencies in 

developing and implementing a common application and reporting system, 

including electronic processes with which a nonfederal entity can apply 

for, manage, and report on the use of funds from multiple grant programs 

that serve similar purposes but are administered by different federal 

agencies; and 

• federal grant-making agencies are required to streamline and simplify their 

application, administrative, and reporting procedures and enable 

applicants to apply for and report on the use of federal grants funds 

electronically. 

As we reported previously, the federal government has undertaken several 

activities to implement P.L. 106-107.8

 OMB has designated the Department 

of Health and Human Services as the lead agency responsible for assisting 

OMB in implementing the act. Activities are presently organized under two 

different groups—the Grants Policy Committee and the Grants Executive 

Board—who report to OMB’s Office of Federal Financial Management and 

Office of E-Government and Information Technology, respectively (see fig. 

2). The Grants Policy Committee is currently responsible for formulating 

overall grant management reform policy and oversees the efforts of the 

cross-agency work groups. Work groups were organized shortly after the 

act was passed to develop policies for implementing the act’s goals related 

to their respective areas:

 8

GAO-05-335. 

Page 8 GAO-06-566 Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
• Pre-Award Work Group, responsible for streamlining policies and 

practices that occur while grantees find grants, apply for grants, and 

receive notification of award decision; 

• Mandatory Work Group, responsible for streamlining policies and 

practices for mandatory grants; 

• Post-Award Work Group, responsible for streamlining policies and 

practices that occur while grantees perform awards, complete required 

reporting, acquire payments, and during the federal monitoring of 

grantees; 

• Audit Oversight Work Group, responsible for improving OMB’s Circular 

A-133 single audit process; and 

• Training and Oversight Work Group, responsible for addressing 

governmentwide issues concerning the grants management workforce. 

Page 9 GAO-06-566 Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
Figure 2: P.L. 106-107 Initiatives Orgnization Chart 

The Grants Executive Board consists of senior officials from federal grantmaking agencies. They provide strategic direction and oversight of 

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

implement technological aspects of P.L. 106-107. Grants.gov is a single 

Web portal that enables users of all types to search for grants 

electronically. Agencies are required to post all discretionary grant 

opportunities on Grants.gov. Agencies are also able to provide the 

capability for potential grantees to apply for grants through this Web site. 

A Grants.gov official said that as of May 22, 2006, all but two agencies have 

provided this capability and that both agencies plan to post applications 

on the site in June 2006. Grants.gov continues to make improvements to its 

cross-agency systems at which potential grantees can find and apply for 

Page 10 GAO-06-566 Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
grant opportunities. A Grants.gov official told us they have started 

planning and designing upgrades to the computer hardware to meet the 

processing requirements as additional grant application packages and 

functions, including improved search capabilities, are added to the site. 

Further, a newly designed Grants.gov Web site was introduced in July 

2006. 

The Grants Management Line of Business is an initiative begun in spring 

2004 that intends to provide end-to-end management (that is, over the 

entire life cycle of a grant from announcement to closeout) of grants and 

address how best to consolidate the administration and management of 

grants across agencies. In 2005, the Department of Health and Human 

Services and the National Science Foundation were selected by OMB to be 

the managing partners to lead the Grants Management Line of Business 

effort. They plan to implement a consortia-based approach that builds on 

existing commercial systems and grants management systems in selected

agencies to develop those agencies and their systems into shared service 

providers or centers of excellence to be used by other agencies. In late 

2005, OMB and the Grants Executive Board chose three agencies—the 

National Science Foundation, the Administration for Children and 

Families within the Department of Health and Human Services, and the 

Department of Education—to lead three consortia in defining

requirements and agency needs around a common end-to-end grants 

management system for members of each consortium. OMB officials told 

us that they, the cochairs of the Grants Management Line of Business, and 

the consortia leads have developed a process for agencies to join a 

consortium and that the consortia leaders are working with other agencies 

to discuss potential partnerships and develop memorandums of 

understanding. A cochair of the initiative said OMB may designate 

additional consortia based on agency interests in leading a consortium. 

Detailed plans for the initiative indicate a goal of September 2011 for 

completing the movement of agencies to the common systems. 

Page 11 GAO-06-566 Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
While OMB and the federal agencies have various efforts under way at the 

federal level to streamline grant administration, grantees continue to 

identify areas in which the goals of P.L. 106-107 have not been met. Areas 

grantees identified include the lack of standard forms and systems across 

agencies, federal processes that do not take into account the manner in 

which grantees conduct their grant administration, and technological 

aspects of the changes that have presented problems for grantees. 

Grantees Report That, 

Despite Federal 

Efforts to Streamline, 

Excessive 

Administrative 

Burden Remains 

Lack of Standardization in 

Applying for and Managing 

Grants 

Grantees continue to express frustration with having to work with varying

systems to apply for and report on the use of grant funds, to respond to 

different administrative requirements, and to use different payment 

systems. They voiced objections to policies and procedures that differ by 

agency, as the differences necessitate that grantees become familiar with 

different application and reporting requirements. (App. II summarizes 

specific areas grantees identified as needing standardization and 

streamlining through the grant life cycle.) 

Grantees commented that they continue to need to be familiar with 

multiple electronic systems and paper processes of different agencies to 

apply for grants. As federal agencies transition to using Grants.gov for 

their application process, grantees find themselves submitting applications 

by mail, through existing agency systems, and through Grants.gov. For 

example, officials from one research institution told us that they had

recently submitted applications through Grants.gov, other federal agency 

Web-based systems, and by mail. A few grantees mentioned that they had

to mail in parts of the application in addition to submitting parts online for 

some agencies. Some grantees expressed a preference to be able to 

continue to use particular existing agency systems because they were 

familiar with these systems and they found useful some of the options that 

they provided, such as tracking the status of applications. 

Multiple Application, 

Reporting, and Payment 

Systems Remain 

Along with agencies’ varying application processes, grantees described 

varying agency procedures required to submit financial and progress 

reports. When the cross-agency work groups sought public comments in 

2001, several grantees raised issues such as the need to develop uniform 

reporting requirements, formats, guidelines, and submission frequencies, 

and the need to obtain and submit reports online. Grantees we visited said

that the frequency with which progress and financial reports were 

required varied across programs, making it difficult to keep track of when

reports were due. Progress reports are sometimes required quarterly, 

Page 12 GAO-06-566 Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
semiannually, or annually. Due dates for quarterly financial reports also 

varied; grantees reported that financial reports are due as few as 30 days 

and as long as 90 days after the end of the quarter.

Grantees provided several examples of administrative requirements that 

vary across grants and the resulting challenges. An official from one 

nonprofit group we met with, which receives seven separate grants all 

related to serving one special population, said reporting was the most 

difficult part of managing federal grants for them. Reports require 

information in different ways, and this requires that intake information on 

their clients must be collected in different ways, such as by special agegrouping categories. Grantees also described different systems to submit 

reports. Some are submitted to agencies’ online systems, while others are 

submitted via paper hardcopy. One system that grantees described 

required continual updating of activities as often as daily for the purpose 

of generating performance reports. A P.L. 106-107 cross-agency team 

representative explained that standard reports are being developed, but 

have not been implemented yet. Grantees receiving many federal grants 

also told us they would like to have the ability to track reporting deadlines 

and submissions online. This capability for grant administrators to 

conduct online tracking of when reports are due and which reports have 

been submitted to and received by the federal grantor agencies would 

decrease the confusion caused by various reporting schedules. 

Some grantees we interviewed expressed a preference for a single grant

management system on which multiple users could perform concurrent 

tasks and that would provide the data to conduct end-to-end management 

of grants throughout the grants’ life cycle, unlike Grants.gov, which only 

handles the front end of the process (i.e., identifying and applying for 

grants). Several grantees told us they have had experience using such 

systems. However, without the capability for grantee staff to oversee the 

entire grant process on one system, grantees cannot easily monitor when 

program reports are due, whether these reports have been submitted and 

received, and whether payments have been made. Not having this end-toend grant management capability makes it particularly challenging for 

central grant management staff at larger grantees to oversee the grant 

process across their organizations. P.L. 106-107 required the development 

of a common system, including electronic processes, through which a 

grantee can apply for, manage, and report on the use of funding. To date, 

such a system has not been developed across federal agencies. However, 

the Grants Management Line of Business initiative, if implemented as 

proposed in its business plan, could eventually result in reducing the 

number of different systems. 

Page 13 GAO-06-566 Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
Several grantees identified the multiple payment systems that they must 

access to receive funds as a source of frustration. The existence of 

multiple payment systems was one of the areas of greatest concern by 

those grantees who commented on the initial plan, and grantees continue 

to identify the need to reduce the number of payment systems. The 

National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers, 

commenting on this situation, explained that it has continued to cause 

problems for the states because of the continued use by some federal 

agencies of unreliable and antiquated systems. Some of these systems are 

paper-based or phone systems. Many grantees with whom we spoke 

described needing to understand several payment systems—as many as 

six different systems in one municipality. This creates problems as new 

employees need to be trained on multiple systems. Grantees we 

interviewed said they preferred some electronic systems more than others 

because of the ease of use and the ability to track balances and print 

reports. They also expressed concern that as systems were standardized, 

the grant management systems that they believe are the most functional 

will not be selected and used as the standard system. 

In 1998, the Chief Financial Officers Council designated two payment 

systems for use by federal civilian grant-making agencies and designated a 

third payment system for use by the Department of Defense.9

 As of 

November 2005, 16 civilian agencies have migrated to one of the civilian 

payment systems, but agencies still continued to operate nine different 

systems. As of May 2006, the Grants Policy Committee’s Post-Award Work 

Group was seeking information on agencies’ current payment systems and 

their plans for these systems in the future. Officials from neither the work 

group nor the Grants Management Line of Business team could provide us

with information on payment systems that would be used under the Line 

of Business consortia approach. They said these details had not yet been 

decided. 

Grantees reported that they see differences across agencies in policies, 

and the requirements and forms resulting from those policies. Grantees 

reported that standard definitions do not exist for some terms, and as a 

result, grantees must track and report expenses in different ways. For 

example, expenses such as particular employee-related costs are 

Lack of Standard Definitions 

and Formats for Grant 

Documents 

 9

The two civilian systems are the Automated Standard Applications for Payment System, 

operated by the Department of the Treasury’s Financial Management Service, and the 

Payment Management System, operated by the Department of Health and Human Services. 

Page 14 GAO-06-566 Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
categorized differently across agencies, which requires recalculating 

expenses into new categories, a time-consuming step. 

Grantees said that the lengthy and differing terms and conditions that are 

part of the award agreements are difficult to grasp. They generally said 

standard terms and conditions would be very helpful in identifying 

significant differences between requirements of different agencies. As of 

March 2006, the Grants Policy Committee’s Pre-Award Work Group was 

drafting a standard award notice and standard terms and conditions. It 

would include a standard section, but would also identify award-specific 

terms and conditions, including points related to the program and to the 

specific grantee, if needed. After the draft is complete, it will be reviewed 

by the Grants Policy Committee, reviewed by the agencies, sent to OMB 

for approval, and published in the Federal Register for a period of public 

comment. The goal for publication is early 2007. 

Grantees reported that for each grant awarded, they are required to review

and sign a set of multiple certifications and assurances forms, though 

these forms do not vary widely from grant to grant, even across agencies. 

These forms attest that the policies and procedures of a grantee 

organization are in accordance with federal requirements. Grantees are 

typically asked to avow that they will not use funds for lobbying purposes 

and that they will provide a drug-free workplace, among other assurances. 

Grantees noted that these types of policies are unlikely to change 

frequently, and that it seems unnecessary to reconfirm their adherence to

them on a continual basis. Nevertheless, grantees receiving many federal 

grants must get essentially the same forms signed many times by executive 

level managers and submit these forms to agencies, a process they say is 

duplicative and time-consuming. In addition, frequently, certifications and 

assurances require original signatures, and must be submitted in hardcopy,

even at times when the application is submitted electronically, adding 

additional burden. Grantees suggested that there should be a mechanism 

to submit any required certifications and assurances annually, in a format 

which is accessible and accepted governmentwide. This would relieve

them of this additional burden and reduce the amount of paperwork 

required. 

Grantees Identified Areas 

Where Administrative 

Inefficiencies Continue to 

Exist 

In addition to the lack of standardization in procedures and systems 

across agencies, grantees mentioned other areas where inefficiencies in

grant administration and excess administrative burden on grantees exist. 

These included not aligning federal grant processes with typical grantees’

business processes, inadequate advance information on potential grant 

Page 15 GAO-06-566 Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
availability, and unexplained delays in grant awards. OMB officials with 

whom we discussed these issues were generally unaware of them but 

acknowledged that further investigation might be warranted into how to 

best alleviate the problems. 

Federal grant administrative systems, particularly those being developed 

under streamlining initiatives, do not always seem to take into account the 

manner in which grantee organizations conduct the business of grant 

administration. For example, grantees told us that federal agencies 

generally only send award notifications to one person in the organization, 

frequently at the executive level (for example, the mayor of a city), 

although several contacts are listed in the application. By sending the 

notification by paper or e-mail to a single contact who is authorized to sign 

off on grant applications for the organization but is not directly involved 

with applying for the grant, federal agencies might inadvertently leave the 

grantee’s program manager and financial staff out of the communication 

chain. It can take some time for organizations to filter the information 

through, and grantees said that notifications were frequently lost in their 

organizations. For instance, if a letter or e-mail is sent to the mayor of a 

city, it could be some time before that information is reviewed and passed 

along to the appropriate person. Grantees would prefer that notifications 

go to multiple people in the organization. 

Federal Processes Not Aligned 

with Grantee Business 

Processes 

Additionally, grantees told us when they receive a bank wire transfer 

report from their bank indicating that a payment has been credited to their 

account, they sometimes cannot identify the grant program for which it is 

providing funds because the bank report does not provide helpful 

information. When funds from federal agencies are deposited, grantee 

financial staff are notified of a deposit to the grantee’s account, which is 

notated with coding on a wire transfer report. Grantees explained that 

these codes are complicated alphanumeric sequences which have little or

no information about which grant or program the money is for. The 

grantee accountants may be unaware that the funds are coming, 

sometimes because grantee program staff have drawn down funds and 

have not notified them and sometimes because the deposit was not 

expected. Financial staff said that even if they are aware of the request, 

they match transactions primarily by dollar amount because the codes are 

difficult to decipher. Grantees said that it would be helpful to have more 

information, such as a payment transaction number or Catalogue of 

Page 16 GAO-06-566 Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
Federal Domestic Assistance number, on the wire transfer report.10

However, if that is not possible, they suggested that some type of notice 

from the agency describing the deposit made would be helpful.

Grantees reported to us that they generally do not have adequate time 

between when federal agencies post grant opportunity announcements 

and application deadlines to adequately develop application

documentation and obtain the necessary internal approvals. They 

explained that, in an environment of increasing reliance and emphasis on 

partnerships in grant project management, grantees have difficulty 

developing a well-conceived project plan, lining up partnerships, and 

getting through the necessary internal approval processes in the period 

normally allotted. They said that they sometimes have insufficient time to

obtain approvals from internal authorities such as city councils and county 

boards, who meet infrequently, yet such approvals are often required by

local officials before submitting applications. If lengthening the 

application period is not feasible for a given grant or program, one grantee 

suggested that federal agencies provide better forecasting of opportunities 

they expect to be available, funds permitting. This would allow grantees to 

begin developing projects well in advance. Some agencies, such as the 

Department of Education, already provide forecasts on their Web sites of 

funding opportunities.11

Inadequate Advance 

Information on Potential Grant 

Availability

Grantees also stated that it is difficult from the multitude of grant 

opportunities available to readily identify those for which they are most 

competitive. Grantees noted that there is inadequate information in 

opportunity announcements for them to make a fully-informed assessment 

of the appropriateness of their project for the grant program. They said 

that the eligibility requirements do not always make it clear whether their 

organization is likely to be considered. Grantees said that the program may 

be designed for a specific type of organization in mind, such as a particular 

level of government, and that more information about these would allow 

them to make better decisions about whether or not to apply. To improve 

their ability to parse through announcements, grantees said it would be 

helpful to have information about previously successful applications, 

which could include a list of awardees or project abstracts. This would 

 10The Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance is a governmentwide compendium of 

federal programs, projects, services, and activities that provide assistance or benefits to the 

American public. 

11http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/find/edlite-forecast.html (downloaded June 1, 2006). 

Page 17 GAO-06-566 Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
allow grantees to make better decisions about whether or not the project 

they have in mind is in line with the federal agencies’ expectations for that 

grant opportunity. 

Grantees said delayed grant awards and uncertainty about award time 

frames create significant burden on them and limit their ability to plan for 

and efficiently execute funded grant programs. Grantees noted that they 

often have no way to check on the status of their applications after they 

are submitted. Further, they often receive award notifications significantly 

later than they had anticipated, sometimes months after the expected 

award date provided in the opportunity announcement. These 

uncertainties and delays cause significant problems in planning for and 

executing grant projects. Some grantees experience problems related to 

the seasonal nature of their work, and delayed awards could mean that the 

project must be delayed a full year before beginning in certain fields such

as environmental research. Additionally, grantees noted prolonged 

uncertainty makes it difficult to maintain partnerships with other 

organizations and that they may need to quickly find another partner once 

the grant has been awarded. Grantees suggested that agencies should 

award grants in a more timely way or provide more precise information on 

when an award could be expected. 

Delays and Uncertainties in 

Grant Award Process 

Technology Issues Have 

Reduced the Benefits of 

Some Initiatives 

Grantees with whom we spoke expressed concerns about difficulty using 

features of the Grants.gov site, the key effort completed so far in response 

to P.L. 106-107. Of those who were aware of Grants.gov’s find capability,

several told us it was not helpful in identifying appropriate grant 

opportunities for them. Grantees also expressed frustration with 

technological issues related to the apply capability of Grants.gov, 

including steps required to register before a user can submit an 

application.

Although Grants.gov’s find capability was designed to provide information 

on federal grant-funding opportunities at a single Web site, several 

grantees told us that it has not provided a better alternative to traditional

methods of finding federal grant opportunities. Some grantee officials 

were unaware of Grants.gov’s ability to help identify grant opportunities. 

The site enables potential applicants to search for grant opportunities by 

several characteristics, such as the type of activity funded and the agency 

providing funds. Grants.gov can also notify potential applicants by e-mail 

of new opportunities that meet certain parameters the potential applicants 

have preidentified. 

Grants.gov Find Capability

Page 18 GAO-06-566 Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
During our visits with grantees in the fall of 2005, we heard several 

comments that the keyword search did not work correctly and returned 

irrelevant grants, resulting in some grantees deciding that such searches 

were too time-consuming and generally unproductive. Some also said that 

grant opportunities they knew were open were not included in results 

when searching for relevant key words. They preferred using other 

approaches to identifying grant opportunities, such as using paid 

subscriptions to grant-finding services and searching individual agencies’ 

Web sites as they have in the past. 

Grants.gov Program Management Office officials told us in early 

December 2005 that the search engine had not been working properly, and 

that an update planned for later that month would address issues that had 

created problems for users. They reported to agency stakeholders in early 

2006 that the search engine had been modified and improved. However, 

our interviews with selected grantees raised the issue that some grantees 

may have already dismissed the Grants.gov find keyword search function 

as a useful tool and abandoned this approach to identifying relevant

funding opportunities. We also reviewed results of Grants.gov’s online 

survey presented to a random sampling of site visitors and found that the 

responses indicated users’ views have not improved markedly since the 

December 2005 change. Moreover, a question posed on the survey after 

the update asking about the search format enhancements showed mixed 

results.12

The technological solutions chosen for Grants.gov’s capability to apply 

online for grant opportunities at federal grant-making agencies—the apply 

capability—has also caused problems for grantees. Grantees cited many 

examples to us of the system not being functional enough and easy to use. 

Grants.gov Apply Capability

 12The survey asked respondents to rate Grants.gov on a variety of Web site characteristics

such as content, navigation, and functionality. Our analysis covered the period from June 

2005, when the survey administered by the current contractor was initiated, through early 

March 2006. We examined the responses to online survey questions asking Grants.gov

visitors to rate on a scale from 1 (“poor”) to 10 (“excellent”) such things as the usefulness 

and organization of search results, how they are presented, and the capability to narrow

the results to find the desired information. The average respondent ratings, although falling 

between 6 and 7 on the scale, showed no significant positive shift upward subsequent to

the December search engine updates. Regarding the question posed after the update on

search format enhancements, 20 percent of the grantee respondents indicated that it was

“better,” another 21 percent said it was “on par,” 12 percent said “worse” and the rest chose 

the “didn’t notice” (29 percent) or “didn’t use search” (16 percent) response categories. 

(Figures do not total 100 percent due to rounding and a small number of respondents not

answering this item. See app. I for detail on our analysis of these data.) 

Page 19 GAO-06-566 Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
Some complained of slow performance on the system, particularly at peak 

usage times. Some complained of the system being shut down. A few 

expressed a desire to have the capability to test the apply function before 

they were actually ready to submit, given the pressure experienced just 

prior to deadlines. Others expressed frustration that existing systems for 

agencies that incorporated all aspects of grant management from the 

application to closeout phases were not used instead of the newlydeveloped Grants.gov system, which could only address identifying and

applying for grants. 

The Grants.gov officials have worked at addressing some of these 

problems. They said they had, for example, upgraded hardware and 

increased capacity for peak application periods as agencies continue to 

increase the number of grant opportunities requiring that applications be 

submitted through Grants.gov. According to the Grants.gov officials, 

future plans also include improving the Web site to provide the capability 

for users to practice applying for grants and test options. Grants.gov users 

who responded to the online survey questions related to the apply function 

gave generally neutral responses. Grantee survey respondents did show a 

greater degree of endorsement to the question of how likely it was that 

they would use Grants.gov to submit an application.13

One issue that some grantees raised was that Grants.gov’s apply feature 

requires the use of software that works only on the Windows operating 

system. For example, research institutions that use Macintosh computers 

cannot use this software to submit applications on Grants.gov. Grants.gov 

officials report that as of June 2006 more than 20 organizations had the 

capability to use a system-to-system approach that directly links 

Grants.gov to their own internal computer system. However, this requires

significant programming and financial investment to use. In addition, in 

December 2005, Grants.gov instituted a temporary solution to allow users 

of Macintosh systems to complete and submit applications using the 

electronic forms software. Grants.gov officials anticipate that a final 

solution will be available in November 2006. 

 13When asked to rate the grant application process on a scale from 1 (“very difficult”) to10

(“very easy”), the average rating by grantee respondents over the period we analyzed was

5.69, which suggests a generally neutral position with regard to the ease or difficulty of the 

application process. On the question of how likely it was that they would use Grants.gov to

submit an application, with a scale from 1 (“not very likely”) to 10 (“very likely”), the 

average rating was 7.63. On both items, however, the average rating after the December 

upgrades were implemented showed no significant improvement over the average rating

prior to the upgrades.

Page 20 GAO-06-566 Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
One particularly difficult problem for grantees using the apply feature has 

been the initial registration process. Grantees experienced difficulties with 

registering through the Central Contractor Registration—a requirement to

use Grants.gov—as well as the time it takes to complete the process. They 

stated that the registration process was complicated and difficult. Much of 

the confusion has centered on the use of Data Universal Numbering 

System (DUNS) numbers, which are used to track grantees. States, as well 

as other grantees, sometimes have more than one DUNS number and 

stated that it is unclear which number should be used for the registration. 

Grantees also stated that the process takes too long to complete. The

Grants.gov online survey also asked site visitors to rate both the clarity of

instructions for registering and the ease of registering. No significant 

positive shifts in the average ratings to these items were observed after the 

Web site was upgraded in December 2005.

14

Grantees we interviewed were concerned that, while the three crossagency grants management reform initiatives related to P.L. 106-107 are 

moving forward, progress to date has been inadequate. Grantees identified

two specific areas where the management of P.L. 106-107 initiatives 

contributed to the lack of progress: (1) inadequate ongoing

communication with grantees; and (2) insufficient information on the 

timing and objectives of proposed changes, including a lack of clarity on 

the responsibility for decisions involving both policy and technology 

issues. 

Grantees Report That 

Inadequate 

Communication and 

Lack of a Clear 

Schedule Have 

Resulted in Slow 

Progress 

Inadequate 

Communication with the 

Grantee Community 

According to some grantees and grantee associations, insufficient ongoing

communication with the grantee community has resulted in poor 

implementation and prioritization of initiatives and has limited grantees’ 

use and understanding of new functionality of electronic systems. P.L. 106-

107 required that lead officials consult with representatives of nonfederal 

entities during the development and implementation of the P.L. 106-107

initial plan. In 2005, we recommended to OMB that cross-agency work 

 14The Grants.gov online survey asked visitors to rate both the clarity of instructions for

registering and the ease of registering on a scale from 1 (“poor”) to 10 (“excellent”). The

average rating provided by grantee responders placed both items in the interval of 6 to 7 

with no significant shifts in these average ratings after the Web site was upgraded in 

December 2005. 

Page 21 GAO-06-566 Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
groups solicit grantee input and provide coordination with grantees on an 

ongoing basis.15 However, there has not been extensive communication 

with all types of grantees on policy and technology development. For 

example, one of the work groups told us that they obtained feedback from 

grantees on a potential product during its development, but this has not 

occurred on a wide scale. 

Our discussions with grantees about P.L. 106-107 initiatives that have been

implemented indicate that insufficient communication with the diverse 

grantee community has hampered effective and efficient implementation 

of the act, especially in the case of the technology implemented. As 

discussed earlier, grantees experienced problems stemming from policies 

and technologies that are inconsistent with grantees’ business practices 

and these have caused inefficiencies in their administration of grants. 

These issues may have been addressed, or addressed sooner, if greater 

communication, before implementation, existed between grantees and the 

cross-agency work groups. For example, we found that some grantees 

could not efficiently use the software needed to apply for grants on 

Grants.gov as intended because internal information technology policies 

limit their use and transfer of certain files or programs throughout the 

organization.

The Grants.gov staff felt that the needs of rural users merited the use of an 

application that could be completed offline, rather than using a system 

that involves completing forms while online, to reduce the time spent 

online completing the application. They also stated that using online 

fillable forms would require a greater investment in hardware to store 

applications that were not complete and also maintain system 

performance. However, some grantees we spoke with stated that it takes a 

long time to submit applications to Grants.gov and they have experienced

problems with submission due to large file sizes. They stated that they 

prefer completing forms online and that it would be easier for them to 

submit applications using that method. 

In addition, the lack of communication between the work groups and the 

whole grantee community may have prevented the work groups from 

focusing on initiatives that grantees found important. Grantees we spoke 

with stated that there was a need to address postaward administration in 

addition to addressing the find and apply phases that are completed on 

 15GAO-05-335. 

Page 22 GAO-06-566 Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
Grants.gov. P.L. 106-107 requires a common electronic system that 

grantees can use to apply for, manage, and report on federal financial 

assistance. However, according to a coleader of the Grants Management 

Line of Business initiative, no single common system exists for grantees to

report on grants from multiple agencies. That initiative should eventually

meet the need for a common system, but not by the law’s sunset date. Had 

grantees been consulted about their priority of needs, greater emphasis 

may have been placed on implementing this initiative. 

In some cases the lack of communication with grantees has limited their 

ability to use and understand new technology implemented under P.L. 106-

107. Some grantees stated that they had not heard of Grants.gov, though 

they expressed some interest when we discussed it with them. Some 

grantees also expressed concern about the lack of training they received 

on the use of electronic systems, either Grants.gov or other agency

electronic systems used for grants management. Those that did use 

Grants.gov expressed some serious concerns about its functionality as 

well. For example, as discussed previously, many stated that the 

Grants.gov keyword search did not yield grants that were relevant to the 

search words. Some of these issues may have been resolved more quickly 

if communication with grantees had been greater.

The lack of adequate communication between the federal government and 

state grantees particularly affects progress in streamlining grant 

administration because of the dual role that states play. States both 

receive federal grants and provide grants to other levels of government 

and nonprofit agencies, including some federal funds that pass through the 

state. Subrecipients of federal grants must follow procedures established 

by both federal agencies and state agencies, all of which can differ. States 

must implement federal changes in their own state grant awards as 

required by the federal agencies. In addition, federal efforts to reduce 

administrative burden on grantees may also stimulate corresponding state 

actions to examine requirements added by states. Some states are already 

taking actions (discussed in more detail in app. III) that may reduce 

administrative burdens on recipients of state grant awards. For example, 

states we visited had initiated their own grant process management 

reforms, including 

• establishing central policies and procedures that provide consistency 

across all state agencies awarding funds to local governments and 

nonprofit agencies; 

• establishing central state grants management offices that can provide 

mechanisms for statewide oversight of grants management; and 

Page 23 GAO-06-566 Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
• developing new streamlined and standardized grants management systems 

that are similar in intent to the federal Grants.gov system. 

The research community has established avenues of communication with 

relevant federal agencies through the Federal Demonstration Partnership, 

a cooperative initiative of 10 agencies and over 90 research institutions 

that encourages streamlining the administration of federally-sponsored 

research. The research community has used the Federal Demonstration

Partnership to provide input on the implementation of P.L. 106-107. This 

initiative, however, only encompasses the research community. State and 

local governments, tribal governments, and nonprofit organizations have 

had only limited success in organizing their efforts to share their views 

with federal streamlining initiatives in an ongoing and continual manner.

The National Grants Partnership, an organization that brings together both 

government and nongovernment individuals with an interest in improving 

grants administration, believes it can serve as a similar avenue of 

communication with the cross-agency work groups. The National Grants 

Partnership’s membership includes individuals from state, local, and tribal 

governments; federal agencies; nonprofits; and associations that represent 

particular sectors of the grant community. National Grants Partnership 

representatives told us that they have not been able to have significant 

interaction with the cross-agency initiatives before they are published in

the Federal Register to obtain comments from the public. They feel that, at 

that point, they can have little influence. They believe to better represent 

the grantee community it is necessary to have greater communication with 

the cross-agency work groups on streamlining issues before proposals are 

published in the Federal Register for comment. 

Although no concrete plans had been made as of March 2006, the Grants 

Policy Committee has recognized the need for grantee feedback and

discussed how to obtain it. Committee members told us that they may hold 

meetings in multiple geographical locations with specific topics for 

discussion. The National Grants Partnership representatives told us they 

would like to be consulted on how the Grants Policy Committee plans to

conduct these meetings to ensure that their members’ views are expressed 

on a wide variety of issues. As of January 2006, the Grants Management 

Line of Business, which is currently in development, had not solicited 

states’ or other grantees’ feedback on capabilities that they would like to 

see used by the consortia service centers. 

Page 24 GAO-06-566 Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
Plans and time lines for the P.L. 106-107 initiatives have not all been

provided to grantees, leaving grantees unsure of what changes will be 

made and when. The initial cross-agency plan for implementing the act 

included some short-term time lines, but these were not explicitly updated 

in later governmentwide annual reports to Congress and OMB, which 

describe the cross-agency work groups’ progress and update their initial 

plan. Similarly, most of the federal grant-making agency annual reports to 

Congress, which describe the progress of each agency, do not contain 

goals and time lines. These annual reports have listed any upcoming 

activities as “future plans” but have not provided time frames for 

completion. The lack of a publicly available schedule reduces both the 

individual agency and the cross-agency initiatives’ accountability for 

making progress. In 2005, we recommended that OMB ensure that agency

annual progress reports to Congress and OMB on implementation of P.L. 

106-107 are prepared and contain information on their progress towards 

goals. However, 12 of the 26 annual reports for the period ending May 2005 

were not finalized and posted on the Web site for the public until after 

March 28, 2006. In the same report, we also stated that the lack of clear 

goals and time lines for cross-agency work groups to complete tasks and 

for agencies to implement systems undoubtedly has contributed to the 

lack of progress in implementing these proposals. An OMB official told us

that it has been challenging to develop a comprehensive schedule but they 

do have individual schedules for various initiatives coordinated through 

the Grants Executive Board. 

In some cases for which project time lines were provided, the goals set for 

the cross-agency initiatives are not being met or extend beyond P.L. 106-

107’s sunset date. For example, the goal of reducing payment systems was 

not achieved by the Chief Financial Officers Council’s deadline and a 

workgroup chairman said that not all agencies will be using these systems 

before November 2007. As mentioned previously, the Grants Management 

Line of Business initiative plans for the consortia service centers indicate 

that all agencies will not complete migration to the centers until 2011. As 

of May 2006, the lead agencies were reaching out to other grant-making 

agencies to discuss an approach and time line for consortia partnering. 

While this may be an appropriate time line for implementing these 

complicated electronic systems, it appears the lack of early attention 

placed on this initiative will prevent its completion by the law’s 2007 

sunset date. In addition, the milestones that the Grants Policy Committee 

provided to us in March 2006 indicate that some tasks may not be 

completed by the act’s sunset date. 

Grantees Are Unsure of 

Plans and Time Lines 

Page 25 GAO-06-566 Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
When Congress passed P.L. 106-107 in 1999, it was concerned that federal 

grant administration requirements could be duplicative, burdensome, and

conflicting, and that this prevents the cost-effective delivery of services at

the local level. Since then, individuals from many agencies have begun to 

work together to meet the act’s goals of simplifying grant administration 

and improving the effectiveness of grants. They organized into work 

groups, proposed changes, and implemented some of them. Their job has 

not been a simple one; it involves reaching consensus and obtaining 

conformity among 26 agencies whose procedures have evolved 

independently to address varying program goals, agency systems, 

management styles, and individual initiatives over the years. Given the 

complexity of the P.L. 106-107 initiatives, it is vital to continue to integrate 

and coordinate their various components. However, despite all these 

efforts, estimates for completing these initiatives indicate that the goals of

P.L. 106-107 will not be met by the act’s sunset in November 2007. Because 

of this, grantees will continue to need to work with different systems that 

often have different processes and procedures. 

Because additional work still needs to be done, it is important that the 

momentum established under P.L. 106-107 initiatives continues past the 

law’s sunset and that agencies understand the importance of being active 

participants in the grants administration streamlining process. As a result 

of P.L. 106-107, agencies have begun to work together to develop common 

systems and processes. However, without the continued congressional 

oversight and accountability that the law brings, implementation of these 

initiatives may lose momentum when the act sunsets. As a result, 

opportunities to simplify grant administration for the grantee, and thus to 

deliver services more cost-effectively, could be missed. 

As we spoke with grantees, it was apparent that closer involvement with 

all types of grantees as policies and technologies have been developed 

may have both reduced the negative effect on grantees from some 

technological changes and could have identified other areas that are 

critical to grantees. The cross-agency teams are just beginning to establish 

a mechanism to get grantees’ views through forums held across the nation. 

Grants.gov’s ongoing systematic efforts to get system users’ comments 

have helped keep it informed of grantees’ concerns about its systems in 

place. However, it has no systematic way to get grantees’ views as it 

develops and proposes changes. Plans to involve grantees as the newer 

Grants Management Line of Business initiative evolves have not yet been 

developed. It is particularly important that states, with large grant 

management systems of their own, be able to have input into, and 

knowledge of, potential changes at the federal level. If grantees remain 

Conclusions 

Page 26 GAO-06-566 Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
isolated from the development of systems and policies that they will use or 

be affected by daily, the system and policies will remain ineffective and 

require more resources to use. As a result, grantees will direct resources 

from implementing programs to completing administrative duties. 

In our previous report, we recommended several areas in which OMB 

should take action to augment progress toward meeting the goals of P.L.

106-107.16 Action is still needed to ensure that adequate progress is made 

on streamlining grant administration. For example, 

• clear goals with time lines for all the initiatives have not been set; 

• efforts toward common grant-reporting systems are moving slowly; 

• although most agencies have submitted their 2005 annual progress reports, 

many were not finalized and posted on the Web site until after March 2006; 

and 

• grantees do not seem to be having adequate input early in the development 

of solutions. 

It appears that without additional oversight, P.L. 106-107’s goals are not 

likely to be met in the short term. 

Given that the goals in P.L. 106-107 are not likely to be met by the sunset 

date of November 2007, Congress should consider reauthorizing the law to 

make certain that federal agencies have clear requirements to continue 

these efforts and the momentum for progress in streamlining grant 

administration continues. As part of the reauthorization process, Congress 

should consider ensuring that agencies and cross-agency teams are setting 

goals and making progress toward P.L. 106-107’s objectives. 

OMB should ensure that the Grants Executive Board and the Grants Policy 

Committee identify and implement approaches to obtaining grantees’ 

input as policies and procedures are being developed by these lead groups. 

We provided a draft of this report to OMB for comment. OMB responded 

in an e-mail that it will continue working with agencies to streamline 

grants administration and to make further progress toward achieving the 

Matter for 

Congressional 

Consideration 

Recommendation for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

 16GAO-05-335, 27. 

Page 27 GAO-06-566 Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
P.L. 106-107 goals. OMB added that it will also continue to seek input from 

the grant community, such as at regular stakeholder meetings, webcasts, 

and other methods as policies are developed. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Director of OMB. We will also 

make copies available to others on request. In addition, the report will be 

available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-

6520. I can also be reached by e-mail at czerwinskis@gao.gov. Contact 

points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may 

be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major 

contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV. 

Stanley J. Czerwinski 

Director 

Strategic Issues 

Page 28 GAO-06-566 Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
Appendix I: Detailed Scope and Methodology Appendix I: Detailed Scope and Methodology 

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

requirements and criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of grant 

administration reform efforts. We also reviewed (1) the initial plan 

developed by teams with representation from grant-making agencies 

across the federal government in 2001 and its annual updates and (2) the 

individual agency progress reports on P.L. 106-107-related activities for 

2005. We interviewed officials from OMB and from the various initiatives

that are addressing P.L. 106-107 requirements—the Grants.gov Program 

Management Office, the Grants Management Line of Business leaders, and 

leadership from the Grants Policy Committee and its cross-agency teams. 

These officials updated us on the status of their initiatives. 

To obtain information on grantees’ views on the streamlining that has 

occurred and additional efforts that they believe should be done, we used 

several approaches. We reviewed testimony related to deliberation of 

streamlining legislation. We also analyzed comments submitted by 

grantees on the initial plan. We interviewed representatives from several 

associations representing various sectors of grantees, such as states, 

counties, small municipalities, tribal governments, universities, and 

nonprofit organizations. We obtained information from them on their 

constituents’ concerns regarding grant administration and the P.L. 106-107

initiatives, and on states that were undertaking grant management reforms 

of their own. 

To obtain a better understanding of how grantees implement grants from 

multiple sources, and how they are affected by grant administration 

initiatives (including those responding to P.L. 106-107), we purposefully 

selected a set of grantees who received federal funds from three or more 

different federal agencies. Our objective in selecting grantees was to 

obtain a diverse mix of grant recipients from grantee communities of 

different sizes1

 and geographical areas of the United States. We used the 

Single Audit data for 2003, which included recipients of federal assistance 

who received more than $300,000 in that year, to develop a list of potential

grantees from which to select.2

 In addition, when determining which states 

 1

For governmental entities, we categorized size by their population. For nongovernmental

entities, we categorized size by the amount of their federal funds received as reported in

Single Audit data. 

2

Nonfederal entities that expend $500,000 or more ($300,000 or more in 2003) of federal

awards in a year are required to obtain an annual audit. The Federal Audit Clearinghouse 

maintains data reported in the audit reports on federal funds received. We used this data to

guide in selecting grantees for our visits. 

Page 29 GAO-06-566 Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
Appendix I: Detailed Scope and Methodology 

to select, we focused on those states that had projects underway or 

implemented to improve their grant management and potentially reduce 

administrative burden on their grantees. We contacted grantee candidates

who fit our selection criteria to learn more about their operations and 

their willingness to participate in our review. 

We then selected 17 grantees—4 state governments, 3 tribal governments, 

2 county governments, 3 municipal governments, 2 nonprofit 

organizations, 2 higher education institutions, and a nonacademic research 

institution. Table 1 shows the mix of nonstate grantees selected by size 

and geographical area. 

Table 1: Description of Nonstate Grantees from Site Visits 

Organization size U.S. geographic area Grantee 

community Small Medium Large East Central West

X X

X X

City/town 

X X

County X X

X X

Nonprofit X X

(nonacademic) X X

X X

X X

Tribal 

X X

College/university X X

X X

Other research 

institution 

X X

Category totals 5 3 5 5 4 4

Source: GAO.

We visited each grantee and interviewed staff involved in grant 

administration. At the grantees, we met with individuals who prepared 

grant applications, financial and performance reports, and requests for 

payment. These included program, financial, and grant management staff. 

We obtained descriptions of their processes to administer grants, 

including the following steps: 

Page 30 GAO-06-566 Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
Appendix I: Detailed Scope and Methodology 

• identifying relevant grant opportunities, including using Grants.gov’s find 

capability; 

• applying for grants, including using Grants.gov’s apply capability and 

specific electronic application processes; 

• being notified of grant awards; 

• reviewing agencies’ grant award documents and submitting necessary 

grant acceptance documents to agencies; 

• submitting progress and financial reports; 

• requesting payments; 

• preparing for and undergoing the annual Single Audit to meet OMB’s A-133 

circular requirements; and 

• closing out grant awards. 

In addition to their procedures, we discussed the effect of streamlining 

initiatives that have been implemented and are planned, as well as other 

aspects of grant administration where grantees would like to see 

improvements. While the views obtained from these grantees are not 

generalizable to the grantee community at large or grantees with multiple 

funding sources, their views do encompass the range of concerns that 

grantees obtaining funds from multiple sources have with regard to 

standardizing and streamlining the process and are generally in accord 

with the information obtained from other sources such as association 

representatives. 

To further examine grantee perspectives with regard to Grants.gov, we 

also obtained and analyzed response data to an online survey which was 

presented to a random sample of those viewing Grants.gov Web pages 

during the period from June 2005 to early March 2006. The survey 

contained items designed to obtain site visitors’ views and satisfaction 

with different elements of the Web site, such as navigation, functionality,

and quality of content. This period encompasses the time in December 

2005 when updates to the site’s functionality were performed. The timing 

of the presentation of the survey was designed to ensure that visitors 

receiving the survey varied in the number of Grants.gov Web pages they

had viewed before the survey appeared. 

In order to examine the responses of visitors who were similar to those in 

the grantee communities we visited, we restricted our analyses to only 

those surveys where the respondents indicated on the survey that they 

Page 31 GAO-06-566 Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
Appendix I: Detailed Scope and Methodology 

were from the grant community with a specific sector affiliation.3 In all, 

there were 6,432 surveys included in our analyses. The response rate for 

the online survey (i.e., the proportion of visitors who completed the survey 

relative to the total number of times it was presented to visitors) generally 

ranged from 7 to 9 percent on average over the time period we examined. 

We compared the average ratings of survey respondents on selected 

survey items before and after the changes to the site in December 2005 to 

assess whether there had been any significant4

 shifts in users’ views of the 

site. These survey respondents constitute a self-selected group whose 

grantee status is unverified. While their responses are sufficiently reliable 

for use as a supplemental source of information concerning grantee views 

of the Grants.gov Web site, they cannot be generalized to all those who 

were presented with the survey, all visitors to Grants.gov, or the grantee 

community at large. 

 3

The respondents included in our analyses chose one of the following as the organization 

they represented: city government, county government, state government, tribal 

organization, research institution (nonacademic), academic institution (such as a college or 

university), faith-based organization, nonprofit organization, public housing authority, or 

for profit organization. We did not include respondents who chose the “other” category or

who indicated that they were representing themselves. 

4

p-value < .05. 

Page 32 GAO-06-566 Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
Appendix II: Examples of Specific Areas 

Grantees Identified As Needing Appendix II: Examples of Specific Areas Standardization and Streamlining 

Grantees Identified As Needing 

Standardization and Streamlining 

Grant phase Area identified as needing standardization or streamlining

Find Need advance information on grant opportunities to allow more time to 

prepare application. 

Current grant finding tools do not filter out irrelevant grants well. 

Access to information on previous awardees and past accepted 

abstracts would be helpful. 

Eligibility requirements are unclear in the grant announcement. 

Apply Registration process on Grants.gov is difficult and time-consuming. 

Application time lines are too short and do not give the grantee enough 

time to adequately establish partnerships and get applications 

internally approved. 

Applications are not completely electronic; some still submitted in 

paper copy. 

Unclear which Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number to 

use if the institution has multiple DUNS numbers. 

Application forms are not standardized across agencies. 

Notification of 

grant award 

Late or delayed award notifications create more work for grantees, and 

cause problems with implementing the program and setting up the 

budget. 

Would like information on rejections as soon as possible. 

No ability to check the status of applications online. 

Would like to receive application comments and review if rejected to 

better prepare future applications. 

Would like standard definitions for materials within award documents. 

There are substantial differences in the terms and conditions for 

different grants and they should be standardized. 

Certifications and assurances are required to be submitted too 

frequently. Grantees would prefer to submit once per year since these 

forms are generally the same. 

Payment There are multiple payment systems used by the various grant-making 

federal agencies. 

Prefer electronic systems with payment tracking abilities. 

Wire transfers are difficult to identify because they contain complicated 

transaction codes that do not relate to the grant. 

Reporting Report and budget definitions differ from agency to agency making it 

difficult to create budgets and reports. 

Some agencies do not have an ability to track the status of reports. 

This includes the ability to see when they are due and if the agency 

has accepted the report. 

Report forms, formats, and instructions differ substantially from agency 

to agency, which causes confusion to grantees. 

Source: GAO data. 

Page 33 GAO-06-566 Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
Appendix III: Some States Have Taken 

Actions That Address Their Grant Appendix III: Some States Have T Administration Issues aken 

Actions That Address Their Grant 

Administration Issues 

In addition to identifying federal grant-making agencies’ processes that 

can be administratively burdensome, the nonstate grantees we interviewed 

identified many of the same issues related to the state agencies that 

provide them with federal funds through state grants. A significant amount 

of federal grant funds is passed through the states to nonprofits and other 

levels of government. Similar to the federal government, states’ different 

agencies can have different procedures and systems in use. For example, 

some have developed electronic systems while others continue to use 

paper processes. 

Grantees mentioned several specific areas in which state agencies lacked 

consistency in their administrative requirements. For example, grantees 

said application and reporting forms sometimes varied. They pointed out 

the need to use different systems to submit reports for different state 

grants. Some programs are managed through online systems, but 

sophistication of the systems varies within a state. One grantee cited a 

state agency system that allowed the grantees to access, complete, and 

submit reports online, but not save the form, meaning that later changes 

required them to complete the whole form again. Another said it would be 

helpful to have the forms mirror federal forms as the federal forms are 

standardized. They also said that terms and conditions vary across state 

agencies; and a few grant coordinators pointed out the difficulty of 

ensuring that their various program departments are complying because of 

the variations in the administrative requirements laid out in the terms and 

conditions. Further, payments are sometimes requested online and 

sometimes with mailed-in requests. Some grantees also noted that their 

state takes considerably longer than federal agencies to send out 

payments, in fact, as long as 4 months. 

Some states have established central policies and procedures that provide 

consistent grants management procedures across all state agencies 

awarding funds to local governments and nonprofit organizations. For 

example, Tennessee has a policy to streamline the reporting requirements 

for selected subrecipients of federal and state grant monies and to achieve

cost savings to both subrecipients and state funding agencies.1

 Prior to this 

 1

State of Tennessee, Department of Finance and Administration, Policy 03, “Uniform

Reporting Requirements and Cost Allocation Plans for Subrecipients of Federal and State

Grant Monies.” (Nashville, Tennessee: December 1997) The policy applies to all private notfor-profit entities subject to accounting and financial reporting standards promulgated by 

the Financial Accounting Standards Board, and governmental not-for-profit entities that are 

subject to Governmental Accounting Standards Board standards. 

Page 34 GAO-06-566 Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
Appendix III: Some States Have Taken 

Actions That Address Their Grant 

Administration Issues 

policy, subrecipients were required to submit revenue, expenditure, and 

budget reports that were individualized and tailor-made to the needs of the 

various state agencies, causing subrecipients to prepare a variety of 

reports for each state agency to which it reported. In another example, 

Texas has established statewide Uniform Grant Management Standards. 

These standards were established to promote the efficient use of public 

funds by providing awarding agencies and grantees a standardized set of 

financial management procedures and definitions, by requiring 

consistency among state grantor agencies in their dealings with grantees, 

and by ensuring accountability for the expenditure of public funds. State 

agencies are required to adhere to these standards when administering 

grants and other financial assistance agreements with cities, counties, and

other political subdivisions of the state. 

Several states have also established or are considering central offices that 

can provide mechanisms for statewide oversight of grants management. 

The Director of the Governor’s Grants Office in Maryland chairs a 

committee of state agency representatives from each cabinet agency that 

meets several times during the year to improve inter-agency grants 

management coordination and to help manage the work of the Grants 

Office. This committee met in early February 2006 to discuss effects on 

state grants management operations from filing electronic grant 

applications on Grants.gov. In 2005, the Grants Office and local officials 

also identified as problems with state awards grantee requirements for 

more information on amount of funding, award criteria, eligibility, match 

requirements, and contact information in state notices of funding 

availability; a lack of standardized terminology, forms, and processes on 

state application forms; and inconsistent communication of federal, state, 

and local legal requirements. Texas established a State Grants Team in the

Office of the Governor that coordinates statewide discussions of grants 

management issues. Other states are exploring establishment of similar 

central grants management offices or committees. In 2005, the Maryland 

Governor’s Grants Office said nine states have contacted it to obtain more 

information about the office. 

Several states are also developing and implementing new streamlined and

standardized grants management systems which are similar in intent to the 

electronic system required by P.L. 106-107. Michigan, for example, 

awarded a 3-year contract in October 2005 to build a statewide electronic 

grants management system which will streamline all phases of the process 

from notification of the state grant opportunity, application for state 

grants, processing of these applications, managing resulting grant awards, 

and closing out grants. The system will provide a portal that provides a 

Page 35 GAO-06-566 Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
Appendix III: Some States Have Taken 

Actions That Address Their Grant 

Administration Issues 

single source for grant posting and grant searching across all state 

agencies and comprehensive information about all phases of the grants 

process. Applicants will be able to obtain information about the eligibility 

requirements of a grant, apply online, and check the status of their 

application. State staff will be able to manage the grant process 

electronically. 

Texas has also begun development of a Grants.gov type project. The state 

legislature directed in 2005 that the Department of Information Resources, 

in cooperation with the Office of the Governor’s State Grants Team, 

develop an electronic system for state agency grants. Objectives of the 

project include (1) providing a single location for state agencies to post 

electronic summaries of state grant assistance opportunities with the state 

agencies; (2) enabling a person to search for state grant assistance 

programs provided by state agencies; (3) allowing, when feasible, 

electronic submission of state grant assistance applications; and 

(4) improving the effectiveness and performance of state grant assistance 

programs. Texas anticipates the project will streamline and simplify state 

grant assistance application and reporting processes through standard 

data elements and a common application form. A state official said the 

project database will include information on federal, state, and private 

funding opportunities. 

Page 36 GAO-06-566 Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
Appendix IV: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 37 GAO-06-566 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Stanley J. Czerwinski, (202) 512-6520, czerwinskis@gao.gov 

In addition to the above contact, Faisal Amin, Thomas Beall, Alexandra 

Dew, Cynthia Grant, Robert Hadley, Ernie Hazera, Thomas James, Justin

Jaynes, Hannah Laufe, Romonda McKinney, Kathryn O’Dea, Carol Patey,

Paul Posner, Amy Rosewarne, and Katherine Wulff also made key 

contributions. 

GAO Contact 

Acknowledgments 

(450393) Grantee Views on Grant Streamlining
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

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

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

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

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

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

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

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

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

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

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

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

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

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

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

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

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

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

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER