Grants Management: Grantees' Concerns with Efforts to Streamline and Simplify Processes
Published: 2006-07-28T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: While some progress has been made since GAO issued its report last year on interagency reform initiatives (GAO-05-355), 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. 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 scope and timing of planned changes.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: About one-fifth of the federal budget—over $460 billion—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   reform goals and implementation plans. 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.  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  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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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,  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. 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. We reported in 2005 that over 460,000 nonprofit  organizations filed tax forms in 2002. Some grants are also provided to  individuals. 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  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.
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;  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. 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:    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.
The Grants Executive Board consists of senior officials from federal grant- making 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  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.
section_title: Grantees Report That, Despite Federal Efforts to Streamline, Excessive Administrative Burden Remains
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Lack of Standardization in Applying for and Managing Grants
paragraphs: 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.)
subsections: section_title: Multiple Application, Reporting, and Payment Systems Remain
paragraphs: 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.
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,  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 age- grouping 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-to- end 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.
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. 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.
section_title: Lack of Standard Definitions and Formats for Grant Documents
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Grantees Identified Areas Where Administrative Inefficiencies Continue to Exist
paragraphs: 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  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.
subsections: section_title: Federal Processes Not Aligned with Grantee Business Processes
paragraphs: 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.
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  Federal Domestic Assistance number, on the wire transfer report.  However, if that is not possible, they suggested that some type of notice  from the agency describing the deposit made would be helpful.
section_title: Inadequate Advance Information on Potential Grant Availability
paragraphs: 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.
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  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.
section_title: Delays and Uncertainties in Grant Award Process
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Technology Issues Have Reduced the Benefits of Some Initiatives
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Grants.gov Find Capability
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Grants.gov Apply Capability
paragraphs: 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.
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 newly- developed 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.
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.
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.
section_title: Grantees Report That Inadequate Communication and Lack of a Clear Schedule Have Resulted in Slow Progress
paragraphs: Grantees we interviewed were concerned that, while the three cross- agency 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.
subsections: section_title: Inadequate Communication with the Grantee Community
paragraphs: 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  groups solicit grantee input and provide coordination with grantees on an  ongoing basis. 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  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    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.
section_title: Grantees Are Unsure of Plans and Time Lines
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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  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. 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.
section_title: Matter for Congressional Consideration
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Appendix I: Detailed Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: 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 sizes 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. In addition, when determining which states  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.
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:  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    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  were from the grant community with a specific sector affiliation. 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 significant 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.
section_title: Appendix II: Examples of Specific Areas Grantees Identified As Needing Standardization and Streamlining
paragraphs: Area identified as needing standardization or streamlining  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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
section_title: Appendix III: Some States Have Taken Actions That Address Their Grant Administration Issues
paragraphs: 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. Prior to this  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  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.
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.