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. Grants.gov is a single  Web portal that enables users of all types to search for grants  electronically. Grants.gov continues to make improvements to its  cross-agency systems at which potential grantees can find and apply for  grant opportunities. Further, a newly designed Grants.gov Web site was introduced in July  2006. 106-107 have not been met. Lack of Standardization in Applying for and Managing Grants

Grantees continue to express frustration with having to work with varying  systems to apply for and report on the use of grant funds, to respond to  different administrative requirements, and to use different payment  systems. They said these details had not yet been  decided. Grantees Identified Areas Where Administrative Inefficiencies Continue to Exist

In addition to the lack of standardization in procedures and systems  across agencies, grantees mentioned other areas where inefficiencies in  grant administration and excess administrative burden on grantees exist. The Grants.gov officials have worked at addressing some of these  problems. Grantees Report That Inadequate Communication and Lack of a Clear Schedule Have Resulted in Slow Progress

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. Inadequate Communication with the Grantee Community

According to some grantees and grantee associations, insufficient ongoing  communication with the grantee community has resulted in poor  implementation and prioritization of initiatives and has limited grantees’  use and understanding of new functionality of electronic systems. 106-107  initial plan. 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. Grantees Are Unsure of Plans and Time Lines

Plans and time lines for the P.L. 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. As a result  of P.L. Action is still needed to ensure that adequate progress is made  on streamlining grant administration. 106-107’s objectives. Contact  points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may  be found on the last page of this report. 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.
Why GAO Did This Study

At least 26 federal entities distribute grants, often with differing administrative requirements. As a result, grantees may be diverting resources from program objectives to comply with varying administrative requirements. Congress, attempting to reduce this inefficiency, passed the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999, commonly referred to as P.L. 106-107. It required the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to ensure that agencies streamline processes, develop common systems, and consult with grantees; it also required GAO to evaluate the law's effectiveness. In response, this report discusses aspects of grant administration that grantees identified as inadequate to meet the act's goals and on which further action was needed. GAO reviewed grantee comments on changes needed, obtained views from grantee associations and users of the Web portal called Grants.gov, performed detailed site visits at selected grantees, and obtained views of OMB.

What GAO Found

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.