While there is substantial variation among grant types, competitively awarded federal grants generally follow a life cycle comprising various stages—pre-award (announcement and application), award, implementation, and closeout—as seen in figure 1. Once a grant program is established through legislation, which may specify particular objectives, eligibility, and other requirements, a grant-making agency may impose additional requirements on recipients. For competitive grant programs, the public is notified of the grant opportunity through an announcement, and potential recipients must submit applications for agency review. In the award stage, the agency identifies successful applicants or legislatively defined grant recipients and awards funding. The implementation stage includes payment processing, agency monitoring, and recipient 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. Federal agencies do not have inherent authority to enter into grant agreements without affirmative legislative authorization. In authorizing grant programs, federal laws identify the types of activities that can be funded and the purposes to be accomplished through the funding. Legislation establishing a grant program frequently will define the program objectives and leave the administering agency to fill in the details by regulation. Adding to the complexity of grants management, grant programs are typically subject to a wide range of accountability requirements (under their authorizing legislation or appropriation) and implementing regulations, which are intended to ensure that funding is spent for its intended purpose. Congress may also impose increased reporting and oversight requirements on grant-making agencies and recipients. In addition, grant programs are subject to crosscutting requirements applicable to most assistance programs. OMB is responsible for developing government-wide policies to ensure that grants are managed properly and that grant funds are spent in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. For decades, OMB has published guidance in various circulars to aid grant-making agencies with such subjects as audit and record keeping and the allowability of costs. In the past 14 years, since the passage of P.L. 106-107, there has been a series of legislative- and executive-sponsored initiatives aimed at simplifying aspects of the grants management life cycle; minimizing the administrative burden for grantees, particularly those that obtain grants from multiple federal agencies; and ensuring accountability by improving the transparency of the federal grants life cycle. See figure 2 for more information. Governance initiatives: Intended to make changes that affect policy and oversight Process initiatives: Intended to simplify aspects of the grants lifecycle Transparency initatives: Intended to increase the transparency of information detailing federal awards and expenditures To print text version of this graphic, go to appendix II. Since the passage of P.L. 106-107, OMB and other entities involved with federal grants management have overseen several ongoing initiatives intended to address the challenges grantees encounter throughout the grants life cycle. These initiatives include consolidating and revising grants management circulars, simplifying the pre-award phase, promoting shared IT solutions for grants management, and improving the timeliness of grant closeout and reducing undisbursed balances. However, management and coordination challenges could hinder the progress of some of these initiatives. As part of the effort to implement P.L. 106-107, OMB began an effort in 2003 to (1) consolidate its government-wide grants guidance, which was located in seven separate OMB circulars and policy documents, into a single title in the Code of Federal Regulations, and (2) establish a centralized location for grant-making agencies to publish their government-wide grant regulations. The purpose of this effort was to make it easier for grantees to find and use the information in the OMB circulars and agencies’ grant regulations by creating a central point for all grantees to locate all government-wide grants requirements. As of March 2013, OMB has completed revisions on guidance related to two areas—- suspension and debarment and drug-free workplace. All grant-making agencies have relocated their suspension and debarment regulations to one title of the Code of Federal Regulations and some have relocated the drug-free workplace regulations. OMB has also been consulting with stakeholders to evaluate potential reforms in federal grant policies contained in the multiple grant circulars. As a first step, in February 2012, OMB published an advanced notice of proposed guidance detailing a series of reform ideas that would standardize information collection across agencies, adopt a risk-based model for single audits (annual audits required of nonfederal entities that expend more than $500,000 in federal awards annually), and provide new administrative approaches for determining and monitoring the allocation of federal funds. After receiving more than 350 public comments on the advanced notice of proposed guidance, OMB published its circular reform proposal in February 2013 and plans to implement the reforms by December 2013. OMB officials believe that once implemented, these reforms have the potential to make grant programs more efficient and effective by eliminating unnecessary and duplicative requirements and strengthening the oversight of grant dollars by focusing on areas such as eligibility, monitoring of subrecipients, and adequate reporting. Launched in 2003, Grants.gov is a website the public can use to search and apply for federal grant opportunities. Officials we spoke to from associations representing state and local governments, universities, and nonprofits praised Grants.gov. Many noted that it simplified the pre-award stage by making it easier for applicants to search for and identify federal grant funding opportunities. Specifically, one organization said the site does an excellent job categorizing grants by topic, making it easier for resource-constrained applicants that may not have a professional grant writer to search for relevant grants. However, grantee association officials also raised concerns about aspects of the site. For example, although there is an OMB policy directive establishing a standard format for federal funding opportunity announcement requirements, grantee officials said that in practice the lack of a standardized grants announcement can increase their burden because extra time is required to determine eligibility and other requirements. We have also reported that persistent management challenges, such as a lack of performance measures and communication with stakeholders and unclear roles and responsibilities among the governance entities, have adversely affected Grants.gov operations. Since we first reported on these issues in July 2009, HHS has made some progress to address these challenges and increase the effectiveness and long-term viability of Grants.gov. Specifically, HHS is taking steps to implement several of our prior recommendations. For example, in 2012, the Program Management Office (PMO) adopted a performance monitoring tool that currently monitors 22 technical measures covering availability, usage, and performance. The PMO also hired a communications director whose responsibilities include outreach to stakeholders. The PMO reported that starting in fiscal year 2013, HHS plans to more actively solicit input from grants applicants on ways to enhance the site. While it is too soon to determine the effectiveness of these reforms, tracking site performance and developing an effective two- way communication strategy to engage with stakeholders are practices which, if thoughtfully and deliberately implemented, may address the challenges we identified. Promoting shared information technology (IT) solutions for managing grants—an original goal of P.L. 106-107 and the governance bodies charged with implementing the legislation—could provide an additional way to simplify post-award grants management activities by consolidating the administration and management of grants across agencies and potentially reducing the costs of multiple agencies developing and maintaining grants management systems. However, it is unclear whether promoting shared IT systems for grants management is still a priority, and if so, which agency is in charge of this effort. In 2004, OMB established the GMLOB to develop government-wide solutions intended to support end-to-end grants management activities, including shared grants management systems (which could include modules for intake of applications, peer review, award, payment, and performance monitoring and final closeout of the grant award). In 2005, OMB chose three agencies—the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Administration for Children and Families within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Department of Education—to develop grants management systems that they could provide for other agencies. Currently, NSF operates Research.gov, which has one other external agency customer that uses individual modules of the Research.gov system; the Administration for Children and Families operates GrantSolutions.gov, which services 17 government customers, 8 of which are HHS components; and Education operates G5, which has 13 customers all of which are Education components (see appendix III for a list of NSF, HHS, and Education customers). Since 2012, there has been uncertainty regarding the status of and future plans for the operational elements of what was the GMLOB. OMB folded GMLOB into the Financial Management Line of Business (FMLOB)—an initiative focused on financial systems improvements— in 2012, and initially announced the Treasury Department would be the managing partner. Later, OMB informed us the General Services Administration (GSA) would be the managing partner, but GSA officials informed us they were only the managing partner of the FMLOB from June to September 30, 2012. GSA officials also told us that according to OMB officials, GSA would not be responsible for working with NSF, HHS, or Education, or promoting shared service agreements for grants management systems. As of March 2013, OMB had not publicly announced who the managing partner of FMLOB would be for fiscal year 2013. After receiving a draft copy of this report for its review and comment, OMB issued a “Controller Alert” on April 29, 2013, announcing that, for fiscal year 2013, the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Financial Innovation and Transformation (FIT) will serve as Managing Partner and the Program Management Office for the FMLOB. OMB also highlighted the Controller Alert in its comment letter to us, also dated April 29, 2013 (see appendix IV for OMB’s letter). In May 2012, OMB issued guidance directing agencies to find ways to spend federal dollars on IT more efficiently to compensate for a 10 percent reduction in overall IT spending. The guidance also directed agencies to propose how they would reinvest the savings from proposed cuts to produce a favorable return on investments. One of the strategies OMB had previously highlighted to reduce duplication, improve collaboration, and eliminate waste across agency boundaries was the Federal IT Shared Services Strategy, also referred to as “Shared First,” an effort to share common IT services across agencies. The guidance did not specifically mention grants management systems, and it is unclear whether OMB intends to encourage other agencies to partner with NSF, HHS, and Education to continue sharing services. In its April 29, 2013, Controller Alert, OMB stated that in accordance with OMB’s guidance on shared services, the Treasury’s FIT will “lead efforts to transform federal financial management, reduce costs, increase transparency, and improve delivery of agencies’ missions by operating at scale, relying on common standards, shared services, and using state-of-the-art technology.” However, OMB’s Controller Alert did not address whether the roles of NSF, HHS, and Education would change as a result of FIT’s leadership in this area. As part of its efforts to improve grants management government-wide, OMB has instructed agencies to improve the timeliness of their grant closeout procedures. Once the grant’s period of availability to the grantee has expired, the grant can be closed out and the funds deobligated by the awarding agency. Timely closeout helps to ensure that grantees have met all financial and reporting requirements. It also allows federal agencies to identify and redirect unused funds to other projects and priorities as authorized or to return unspent balances to the Department of the Treasury. In August 2008, we reported that during calendar year 2006 about $1 billion in undisbursed funding remained in expired grant accounts in the largest civilian payment system for grants, the Payment Management System. In a follow-up report issued in April 2012, we found that at the end of fiscal year 2011 there was more than $794 million in funding remaining in expired grant accounts. To improve the timeliness of grant closeout, we recommended that OMB instruct all executive departments and independent agencies to annually track the amount of undisbursed grant funding remaining in expired grant accounts and report on the status and resolution of the undisbursed funding in their annual performance plan and annual performance and accountability report. In response to our recommendations, on July 24, 2012, the Controller of OMB issued a “Controller Alert” to all federal chief financial officers instructing agencies to take appropriate action to close out grants in a timely manner. The alert provided strategies agencies should consider to achieve this goal, including establishing annual or semiannual performance targets for timely grant closeout, monitoring closeout activity, and tracking progress in reducing closeout backlog. In a September 2012 report, we identified certain key features for effective interagency collaborative efforts, including the importance of identifying goals for short-and long-term outcomes. Identifying goals can help decision makers reach a shared understanding of what problems genuinely need to be fixed, how to balance differing objectives, and what steps need to be taken to create not just short-term advantages but long- term gains. In February 2013, COFAR posted five priority goals for fiscal years 2013 to 2015 to the U.S. Chief Financial Officers Council website: 1. Implement revised guidance to target risk and reduce administrative burden. 2. Standardize federal agencies’ business processes to streamline data collections. 3. Provide public validated financial data that aligns spending information with core financial accounting data in coordination with the work of the GATB. 4. Ensure that federal agencies’ grants professionals are highly qualified. 5. Reduce the number of unclean audit opinions for grant recipients. For each priority, COFAR identified proposed deliverables and milestone dates for those deliverables. As of May 2013, COFAR had not released to the public an implementation plan that includes other key elements such as performance targets, mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on progress made towards stated goals, and goal leaders who can be held accountable for those goals. Establishing implementation goals and tracking progress toward those goals helps to pinpoint performance shortfalls and suggest midcourse corrections, including any needed adjustments to future goals and milestones. Reporting on these activities can help key decision makers within the agencies, as well as stakeholders, obtain feedback for improving both policy and operational effectiveness. In response to the draft report we provided for them to review, OMB officials stated in their comment letter dated April 29, 2013, that they used a more detailed internal project plan to monitor timelines and roles and responsibilities. They acknowledged that more needs to be done by pointing out that as the work of COFAR matured, the council would be better able to articulate metrics that allowed for a more thorough evaluation of whether the policy changes were having their intended impacts. They added that the publically-stated deliverables were intended to leave room for further evolution of the right approach for implementation. While we have not been able to assess or validate OMB’s newly provided information on COFAR’s approach, we believe a more detailed, publically-available implementation plan that will allow Congress and the public to better monitor the progress of the reforms is needed. We previously reported that when interagency councils clarify who will do what, identify how to organize their joint and individual efforts, and articulate steps for decision making, they enhance their ability to work together and achieve results. In interviews with federal grant management officials we were told that OMB and the council do not always clearly articulate the roles and responsibilities for various streamlining initiatives, plans for future efforts, and means for engaging small grant-making agency stakeholders and utilizing agency resources. Agency officials involved with current grants management reforms told us that the roles and responsibilities for various streamlining initiatives are not always clear. For example, OMB designated Treasury as the managing partner of the FMLOB initiative, then designated GSA as the managing partner, but only for four months. As of March 2013, OMB had not issued a subsequent announcement as to which agency would take over the grants management related functions of FMLOB after GSA. In the meantime, the former GMLOB consortia leads are unsure whether promoting shared grants management systems is still a priority. As previously mentioned, OMB’s Controller Alert of April 29, 2013, announced that Treasury’s FIT office will serve as Managing Partner and the Program Management Office for the FMLOB for fiscal year 2013. However, the Controller Alert did not address whether the roles of NSF, HHS, and Education would change as a result of FIT’s leadership in this area. In addition to OMB, eight agencies are permanent members of COFAR. COFAR also has a rotating member, currently NSF, which serves a two- year term. Agency officials involved with COFAR told us that the council is still determining the role of the rotating agency and how COFAR will reach out to smaller grant-making agencies not on the council. According to OMB officials, they are still working out how to provide other agencies with a communication channel and the opportunity to review and comment on proposed changes. In its April 29, 2013, comment letter, OMB acknowledged that the expectation was that the rotating member would be able to represent the views of smaller agencies and that there may be federal officials or agencies that wish to be more involved or not fully aware of the all the COFAR’s work. OMB officials also stated that COFAR staff will help the rotating agency gather input and feedback from the broader collection of smaller agencies. OMB officials said incorporating the views of all federal grant-making agencies was essential to the work of the COFAR and that their strategy would continue to evolve over time, as it will for engaging with nonfederal stakeholders. Agency officials also told us that they are still trying to determine how to bring together financial, policy, and IT staff, and incorporate their areas of expertise into discussions on proposed policy and program changes. One agency official noted this had been a challenge with the previous grants management structure. She said that the GPC focused on policy and the GEB focused on systems and technology solutions and, even though there was some level of overlap among the people staffing the two boards, a stronger connection was needed to ensure that streamlining efforts included technology and policy expertise. In their comment letter, OMB officials stated they made repeated efforts to solicit the views of all federal agencies through town hall meetings, formal circulation of draft policies for comment prior to publication, and conference calls to share information on key issues. We have noted that communication is not just “pushing the message out,” but should facilitate a two-way, honest exchange and allow for feedback from relevant stakeholders. We previously reported that grantees felt that the lack of opportunities to provide timely feedback resulted in poor implementation and prioritization of streamlining initiatives and limited grantees’ use and understanding of new functionality of electronic systems. For example, grantees experienced problems stemming from policies and technologies that were inconsistent with their business practices and caused inefficiencies in their administration of grants. Members of the grantee community told us they continue to have concerns because they do not see a role for themselves as OMB and COFAR develop priorities for reforming federal grants management. For example, officials from the eight associations representing state and local governments, universities, and nonprofit recipients told us that outreach to grantees on proposed reforms continues to be inconsistent or could be improved. Ten organizations representing state and local officials, including some of the same organizations we interviewed, submitted a letter to OMB after the creation of COFAR was announced, expressing their disappointment that there would be no state or local representation on the council. In the letter, the state and local officials stated that formal engagement of all stakeholder parties is necessary for success and that their exclusion from the council undermined the important work of the council before it even commenced. OMB officials stated they are seeking different forums to engage with members of the grantee community. Several association officials said they appreciated that OMB reached out to them for comment before proposing changes to OMB circulars. OMB and COFAR also hosted a webinar in February 2013 to coincide with the circular reform proposal, and invited representatives from grantee associations to discuss their concerns and ask questions. In addition, following their review of the draft report, OMB officials provided us with a list of invitations for speaking engagements they have accepted since February 2013 as a snapshot of the types of engagements they participate in to communicate with interested stakeholder groups. While improved outreach to the broader grantee community is an ongoing challenge, certain groups of grantees have established communication channels with the federal government. These approaches could be a useful model for COFAR to build upon with different grantee communities. For example, we have previously reported that the research community established avenues of communication with relevant federal agencies through the Federal Demonstration Partnership (FDP), a cooperative initiative of 10 agencies and over 90 research institutions. Agency officials and members of the research community continue to describe this partnership as an effective model for promoting two-way communication. Officials from the HHS Grants.gov PMO told us they solicit information and feedback related to the functionality of Grants.gov through quarterly meetings and open forum-type sessions with FDP members. According to these officials, consistent communication with the FDP has enabled them to survey the community and determine appropriate improvements to the system to avoid undertaking inefficient or counterproductive revisions to the Grants.gov system. Likewise, a FDP official told us face-to-face meetings with grantor agency officials allow them to provide input on proposed changes to grants management policies and practices. In a second example, several state and local grantee association officials referred to the communication channels that were set up while implementing the Recovery Act as an example of effective two-way communication they would like to see replicated. In the same letter submitted to OMB after the creation of COFAR was announced, 10 organizations representing state and local officials referenced the constant and consistent communication OMB and the Recovery Board engaged in with members of the grantee community as a requirement for success. We have also previously reported that OMB and Recovery Board officials held weekly conference calls with state and local representatives to hear comments, concerns, and suggestions from them and share decisions. As a result of these calls, federal officials changed their plans and related guidance. This type of interaction was essential in clarifying federal intent, addressing questions, and establishing working relationships for the implementation efforts. However, several officials said these outreach efforts have dwindled, and they again feel OMB is not involving them in COFAR priority-setting discussions. Although the circumstances surrounding the Recovery Act were unusual in that there was a high level of funding available that had to be spent quickly, there are opportunities for COFAR to learn what communication strategies worked for agency officials and grantees, and apply those strategies. Another possible mechanism for improving communication with states and localities might be to use the Partnership Fund for Program Integrity Innovation (Partnership Fund) as a venue for federal policymakers to communicate and engage with the grantee community on proposed grants management reforms. Established by the 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act, and administered by OMB, the Partnership Fund allows federal, state, local, and tribal agencies to pilot innovative ideas for improving assistance programs in a controlled environment. We previously reported that as part of implementing the Partnership Fund, OMB established a Federal Steering Committee, consisting of senior policy officials from federal agencies that administer benefits programs and formed the “Collaborative Forum.” The Collaborative Forum is made up of state representatives and stakeholder experts, including federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and others, who collaborate to generate, develop, and consult on potential pilot projects. The forum’s website, http://collaborativeforumonline.com, is used to hold discussions about potential projects and to share lessons and best practices among members. In a time of fiscal constraint, continuing to support the current scope and breadth of federal grants to state and local governments will be a challenge. Given this fiscal reality, it becomes more important to design and implement grants management policies that strike an appropriate balance between ensuring accountability for the proper use of federal funds without increasing the complexity and cost of grants administration for agencies and grantees. Duplicative, unnecessarily burdensome, and conflicting grants management requirements result in resources being directed to nonprogrammatic activities, which could prevent the cost- effective delivery of services at the local level. Streamlining and simplifying grants management processes is critical to ensuring that federal funds are reaching the programs and services Congress intended. In October 2011, OMB created COFAR and tasked it with overseeing the development of federal grants management policy. Although COFAR recently identified some priorities, it has not yet released to the public an implementation plan that includes performance targets, mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on progress made towards stated goals, and goal leaders who can be held accountable for those goals. Although OMB officials provided us with some additional and updated information in their comment letter that we were unable to assess or validate, they agreed with our recommendations that OMB and COFAR need to develop an implementation schedule and mechanisms to monitor, evaluate and report on results, clarify roles and responsibilities for the various streamlining initiatives and engagement with federal stakeholders, and develop an effective two-way communication strategy that includes the grant recipient community. OMB officials acknowledged that more needs to be done to clarify roles and responsibilities and plans for moving forward with various streamlining initiatives. Moreover, stakeholders continue to express frustration about limited opportunities to provide feedback on proposed reforms. If grantees remain isolated from COFAR’s development of new grants management systems and policies, those systems and policies could be ineffective or require more resources to use. We recommend the Director of OMB, in collaboration with the members of COFAR, take the following three actions: 1. Develop and make publicly available an implementation schedule that includes performance targets, goal leaders who can be held accountable for each goal, and mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results. 2. Clarify the roles and responsibilities for various streamlining initiatives and steps for decision making, in particular how COFAR will engage with relevant grant-making agency stakeholders and utilize agency resources. 3. Improve efforts to develop an effective two-way communication strategy that includes the grant recipient community, smaller grant- making agencies that are not members of COFAR, and other entities involved with grants management policy. We provided a draft of this report to OMB, Education, GSA, HHS, and NSF for comment. NSF and HHS provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. In its written comments, OMB generally concurred with our findings and recommendations but also said there had been significant progress on the grants management streamlining process in recent months, including using a more detailed project plan internally to monitor progress made towards the priorities established for COFAR; making efforts to solicit the views of all federal agencies including town hall meetings, formal circulation of draft policies for comment prior to publication, and conference calls to share information on key issues; and using meetings, webinars, and teleconferences to inform a diverse cross section of stakeholder groups about the work that the COFAR is doing, and to get their feedback on upcoming policy changes. Because OMB only provided us with additional and updated information at the end of its comment period, we could neither verify nor validate it. However, we have incorporated OMB’s comments into the body of the report, as appropriate, in order to make our review as up-to-date as possible. As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretaries of Education, and Health and Human Services; Administrator of GSA; Director of the National Science Foundation; the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and to appropriate congressional committees. The report also is available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff members have any questions or wish to discuss the material in this report further, please contact me at (202) 512-6806 or 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 key contributions to this report are listed in Appendix V. We were asked to examine federal grants management reform efforts. To accomplish this, we reviewed (1) what the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and other federal grants governance bodies have done since the passage of P.L. 106-107 in 1999 to reform grants management processes and reduce unnecessary burdens on applicants, grantees, and federal agencies; and (2) what actions, if any, have been taken to address what we have found to be persistent management challenges, such as the lack of a comprehensive plan for implementing reforms, confusion over roles and responsibilities among grants governance bodies, and inconsistent two-way communication with stakeholders. To address both objectives, we reviewed P.L. 106-107; and OMB circulars and guidance such as OMB-12-01, “Creation of the Council on Financial Assistance Reform,” OMB A-102, “Grants and Cooperative Agreements With State and Local Governments,” and A-110, “Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Other Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and Other Non-Profit Organizations,” which describe administrative requirements for different types of grantees, and OMB’s February 2012 advanced notice of proposed guidance, which proposes several ideas for circular reforms. We also reviewed action plans created by former and current interagency councils with responsibility for overseeing grants management reforms, as well as our previous work and other literature on grants management initiatives and the related challenges that have undermined the government’s ability to simplify grants management processes, reduce unnecessary burden on applicants, grantees, and federal agencies, and improve delivery of services to the public. We also reviewed our previous work on collaborative mechanisms and management consolidation efforts. We interviewed officials from OMB who are involved with developing and implementing government-wide grants management policy; officials at the three agencies that served as consortia leads for the 2004 to 2012 Grants Management Line of Business (GMLOB) e-government initiative: the National Science Foundation (NSF), Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Department of Education; and officials at the agency that managed the Financial Management Line of Business (FMLOB) e- government initiative in 2012: the General Services Administration (GSA). To capture the perspective of grantor agencies, we spoke to officials from HHS, NSF, and the Department of Education in their grant-making and administration capacities. To understand grantee perspectives, we interviewed officials from grantee associations that represent a variety of grantee types including state and local governments, nonprofit organizations, and universities. To select the grantee associations that we interviewed, we relied on three data sources: 4. Our previous work on grant streamlining which included 31 grantee associations separated into four categories: state government, local and regional government, nonprofits, and tribal; 5. A list of grant associations included on the Grants.gov website; and 6. Additional grantee associations that have been active in grants- related topics in the past. We selected 16 grantee associations to contact. These associations represented a variety of grantee types from state and local government, nonprofit organizations, as well as associations representing grantees on crosscutting grants related issues. In addition, the associations could offer a historical perspective on federal efforts to streamline grants management. Of the 16 associations we contacted, 8 associations said they were knowledgeable about grants management reforms and could answer our questions. We interviewed officials at these 8 associations: National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers, and Treasurers National Association of State Budget Officers National Association of Regional Councils National Association of Counties National Grants Management Association National Grants Partnership Federal Demonstration Partnership National Association of Chief Information Officers Two additional associations, Federal Funds Information for States and National Council of Nonprofits, sent us comments on grants management reforms in writing. We conducted this performance audit from July 2012 to May 2013 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Content To address grants management issues, the act required the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to direct, coordinate, and assist federal agencies in establishing common grants management systems, and simplifying their application, administrative, and reporting procedures with the goal of improved efficiency and delivery of services to the public. The law sunsetted in 2007. The Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Council established the GPC to implement P.L. 106-107. Composed of grants policy experts from across the federal government, the GPC oversaw the efforts of cross-agency work groups focusing on different aspects of grants management, recommended policies and practices to OMB, and coordinated related interagency activities. OMB replaced the GPC in 2011 with the Council on Financial Assistance Reform (COFAR). This board consisted of senior officials from federal grant-making agencies and provided strategic direction and oversight of Grants.gov, a grant identification and application portal. OMB coordinated grants management policy through the board and the GPC until October 2011, when OMB announced that COFAR would replace both of these federal grant bodies. In response to P.L. 106-107, OMB created Grants.gov, a central grant identification and application website for federal grant programs. The Grants.gov oversight and management structure includes HHS, the managing partner agency, the Grants.gov Program Management Office, which is housed within HHS and responsible for day-to-day management, and formerly the GEB which provided leadership and resources. The GPC was also involved because of its role in streamlining pre-award policies and implementing P.L. 106-107. Established to support the development of a government-wide solution to support end to-end grants management activities that promote citizen access, customer service, and agency financial and technical stewardship. In 2005, OMB selected the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) to jointly lead the effort. Later, NSF took over the leadership role. In fiscal year 2012, it became part of the Financial Management Line of Business. Transparency This act required OMB to establish a free, publicly accessible website containing data on federal awards and subawards. OMB began providing data on federal awards on USAspending.gov in December 2007 and phased in reporting on subawards in 2010. Transparency Congress and the administration built provisions (such as quarterly use and outcome reporting) into the Recovery Act to increase transparency and accountability over spending. The Recovery Act called for a website (Recovery.gov) for the public to access reported data. A second website (FederalReporting.gov) was established so grant recipients could report their data. The Recovery Act also established the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board to coordinate and conduct oversight of funds distributed under the act in order to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse. Type Transparency This board, established by an executive order, provides strategic direction for enhancing the transparency of federal spending and advance efforts to detect and remediate fraud, waste, and abuse in federal programs. It is charged to work closely with the existing Recovery Board to extend its successes and lessons learned to all federal spending. This council replaced the GPC and GEB in October 2011. OMB charged COFAR with identifying emerging issues, challenges, and opportunities in grants management and policy and providing recommendations to OMB on policies and actions to improve grants administration. COFAR is also expected to serve as a clearinghouse of information on innovations and best practices in grants management. COFAR is made up of the OMB Controller and the Chief Financial Officers from the largest eight grant-making agencies and one of the smaller federal grant-making agencies. The latter serves a rotating 2-year term. In February 2012, OMB published an advanced notice of proposed guidance detailing a series of reform ideas that would standardize information collection across agencies, adopt a risk-based model for single audits, and provide new administrative approaches for determining and monitoring the allocation of federal funds. After receiving more than 350 public comments on its advanced notice of proposed guidance, OMB published its circular reform proposal in February 2013, and plans to implement the reforms by December 2013. To improve the timeliness of grant close out and reduce undisbursed balances, the Controller of OMB issued a “Controller Alert” to all federal chief financial officers instructing agencies to take appropriate action to closeout grants in a timely manner. It provided a number of strategies such as establishing annual performance targets for timely grant close out. In addition to the contact named above, Thomas M. James, Assistant Director, and Elizabeth Hosler, and Jessica Nierenberg, Analysts-in- Charge, supervised the development of this report. Travis P. Hill, Melanie Papasian, and Carol Patey made significant contributions to all aspects of this report. Elizabeth Wood assisted with the design and methodology, Amy Bowser provided legal counsel, Donna Miller developed the report’s graphics, and Susan E. Murphy and Sandra L. Beattie verified the information in this report. Other important contributors included Beryl Davis, Kim McGatlin, Joy Booth, and James R. Sweetman, Jr.

Summary: GAO has previously identified several management challenges that have hindered grants management reform efforts. GAO was asked to review recent federal grants management reform efforts. GAO reviewed (1) what OMB and other federal grants governance bodies have done since the passage of P.L. 106-107 to reform grants management processes, and (2) what actions, if any, have been taken to address what GAO has found to be persistent management challenges. GAO reviewed relevant legislation, OMB circulars and guidance, action plans of interagency councils responsible for overseeing grants management reforms, and previous GAO work and other literature on grants management reforms. GAO also reviewed its previous work on collaborative mechanisms and management consolidation efforts. GAO also interviewed officials from OMB, grant-making agencies, and associations representing a variety of grantee types. In the past 14 years, since the passage of the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-107), there has been a series of legislative- and executive-sponsored initiatives aimed at reforming aspects of the grants management life cycle. Recently, a new grants reform governance body, the Council on Financial Assistance Reform (COFAR), replaced two former federal boards--the Grants Policy Committee (GPC) and Grants Executive Board (GEB). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) created COFAR and charged it with identifying emerging issues, challenges, and opportunities in grants management and policy and providing recommendations to OMB on policies and actions to improve grants administration. In addition to this new governance structure, OMB and other entities involved with federal grants management are overseeing several ongoing reform initiatives intended to address the challenges grantees encounter throughout the grants life cycle. These initiatives include consolidating and revising grants management circulars, simplifying the pre-award phase, promoting shared information technology (IT) solutions such as the development of shared end-to-end grants management systems, and improving the timeliness of grant close out and reducing undisbursed balances. Management and coordination challenges could hinder the progress of some of these initiatives. For example, although promoting shared IT solutions for grants management--an original goal of P.L. 106-107--remains a priority, there has been uncertainty regarding the status of this initiative and future plans for it. The lead agency for this initiative changed several times since 2012, and it has been unclear at times whether promoting shared IT systems for grants management would continue to be a priority, and if so, which agency was in charge. After receiving GAO's draft report for review, OMB issued a "Controller Alert" on April 29, 2013, announcing that the Department of the Treasury would lead efforts to transform federal financial management by, among other things, relying on common standards, shared services, and using state-of-the-art technology. Although COFAR has recently identified several high-level priority goals for 2013 through 2015, it faces some of the same management challenges identified in previous GAO reports on grants management, such as the lack of a comprehensive plan for implementing reforms, confusion over roles and responsibilities among grants governance bodies, and inconsistent communication and outreach to the grantee community. COFAR has not yet released to the public an implementation plan that includes key elements such as performance targets and goal leaders for each goal, and mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on progress made toward stated goals. Furthermore, agencies involved with current grants management reforms are not always clear on their roles and responsibilities for various streamlining initiatives which may cause such initiatives to languish. Finally, GAO found that members of the grant recipient community continue to voice concern because they do not see a role for themselves as OMB and COFAR develop priorities for reforming federal grants management. In the comments it provided on April 29, 2013, OMB described actions it is taking to address these challenges, such as using a more detailed project plan internally and scheduling outreach events with federal partners and members of the grantee community. GAO recommends that the Director of OMB: (1) develop and make publiclyavailable an implementation schedule that includes performance targets, goal leaders who can be held accountable for each goal, and mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results; (2) clarify the roles and responsibilities for various streamlining initiatives; and (3) develop an effective two-way communication strategy with relevant stakeholders. OMB generally concurred with our recommendations and provided additional and updated information, which was incorporated into the report as appropriate.