Annua l Gra nts Ma na g e me nt Surve y Re sults a nd Ana lysis FEBRUARY, 2020
RE I Syste ms, NGMA, a nd GWU Co nduc t a Gra nts Surve y Identify issues and priorities Let you see how you fit Help advocate for what you need
Wha t Are the Big g e st F inding s? More time spent on compliance than anything Variation in admin spend: < 2% to > 20% Many can’t measure performance, or don’t know if it improved (more than 40%) Everyone wants more Fed/State data sharing
Co nte nts • Introduction and methodology • About the respondents • How grant managers spend their time • Administrative spend on grants management • Performance and burden • Strongly supported issues… and those that are not • Significant challenges and success factors • Key takeaways 4
RE I Syste ms, GWU, NGMA The National Grants Management Association provides tools and resources for grants professionals to support and maintain high levels of grants management competency and to establish standards of excellence for grants managers. Visit ngma.org The Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration is a focal point for public affairs education, research, and public service at the George Washington University. Visit tspppa.gwu.edu REI Systems provides grant management solutions, analysis and advice. We digitize government to produce healthier citizens, safer communities, and better lives. Visit reisystems.com 5
I ntro duc tio n a nd Me tho do lo g y Purpose : The purpose of the grants management survey and analysis is to inform the grants community of cross-cutting issues and trends so as to help improve grants management, and to support advocates for better grant management Survey Design : GWU, REI, and NGMA developed a survey of grant managers in 2016 to help identify key practices, major challenges, and related topics that could help inform the grants management community. Few revisions were made to the survey for 2017, 2018, and 2019, to maximize the opportunity to evaluate the trend of responses over time Survey Administration : – During November 2019, we invited more than 5,000 professionals in grant management and related fields to take the survey online. Others (OMB, Grants.gov) also distributed the survey on our behalf – Those invited to respond included NGMA members, attendees of Grants Management Breakfast Forum events, and other grants professionals that REI and GWU have been able to identify. Those receiving the survey were encouraged to forward it to colleagues – Responses were anonymous, though respondents were offered the chance to receive these survey results if they chose to share their name and email address (208 of 309 respondents did so) 6
Re spo nde nts I nc lude d a Mix o f F e de ra l, Sta te / L o c a l & No n-Pro fit Gra nt Ma na g e rs 309 Re spo nse s Ye a rs o f E xpe rie nc e Total Count Grant Maker Grant Recipient Both Other 0-2 Years 3-5 Years 6-10 Years More than 10 Years 120 100 7% 75 80 18% 60 44 57% 40 18% 29 29 25 25 23 20 12 11 9 4 5 5 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 Federal State Local Other Tribal Non Government 7
How Gr ant Manage r s Spe nd T he ir T ime 8
T he T ime Gra nt Ma na g e rs Spe nd Mo nito ring Co mplia nc e Ha s Sta b ilize d But compliance still requires more time than any other single activity 1.3. How much time do you spend on the following grants management activities? Monitoring Financial Administrative Requirements Monitoring Non-Financial Administrative Requirements Program Policy and Design Not Grants Other Activities Evaluating Program Outcomes and Impact Monitoring Grantee Programmatic Outputs Evaluating Grantee Outcomes and Impact 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Note: 2019 figures have been adjusted to exclude 2017 2018 2019 Application submission / review and pre-award 9 activities, so they can be compared to prior years.
F e w Org a niza tio ns Re q uire T ha t T he ir Sta ff Re c e ive Gra nts Ma na g e me nt T ra ining and certification requirements are even more rare 1.8. Does your organization require formal grant training of your staff? Re q uire d T ra ining 11% 29% 60% Yes, with Certification Yes, but no certification No training required 10
Administr ative Spe nd on Gr a nts Manage me nt 11
T he re is Wide Va ria tio n I n Administra tive Spe nding o n Gra nts Ma na g e me nt Perhaps heavy spenders can learn from those who are more frugal and those who have been frugal need more resources 1.7. What percentage of the annual value of grants processed by your organization does [your organization’s] administrative budget constitute? < 2% 2 - 5% 5 - 10% 10 - 20% > 20% Administrative Spending 24 grantors Federal 9% 27% 27% 18% 27% 2 grantees 49 grantors Local 41% 19% 16% 14% 10% 61 grantees State 28 grantors 11% 19% 16% 2% 15% 54 grantees Non-Profit 23% 15% 37% 12% 13% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 12
Pe r for manc e and gr ante e bur de n 13
Only Ha lf o f Go ve rnme nt Re spo nde nts Sa y Outc o me s I mpro ve d L a st Ye a r More non-governmental respondents reported improved outcomes 6.3. Have your organization’s / your grantees outcomes improved over the past 12 months? ? / 40% Performance Fell, 47% or Don’t Know 56% No Don't Know Yes > 5% Yes < 5% Performance 60% 53% Improved 44% Federal State & Local Non Government 14
Mo st Gra nt Pro g ra ms, But No t All, Se t Pe rfo rma nc e E xpe c ta tio ns Up F ro nt More non-governmental respondents reported improved outcomes 6.4. When do you first communicate or receive performance expectations for your grant? These grant programs 2% set expectations after At the Notice of Funding Opportunity award 6% (NOFO) 7% In the Notice of Award When the first progress/ performance report is due Some other time after award 27% 58% Do not receive/submit performance expectations 15
Gra nt Ma na g e rs Use Mo re Se lf Re po rte d T ha n T hird Pa rty Ga the re d Da ta …but most government grant managers rely in part on data gathered by a 3rd party 3.1. Please indicate the frequency with which you submit (or expect your grantees to submit) various types of data. Quarterly Annual Episodic 82% 69% of federal respondents use 3 rd party data gathering (at least in part) 55% of state / local respondents use 3 rd party 52% data gathering (at least in part) 38% 35% 33% 31% 29% 29% 27% 27% 26% 22% 19% 19% 17% Self Reported Self Reported 3rd Party Quantitative 3rd Party Qualitative Survey Data Quantitative Qualitative 16 16 Note: Most respondents use more than one type of reporting source
F ina nc ia l Da ta Co lle c te d Co ntinue s to b e Pe rc e ive d a s Mo st T ime ly, Use ful & Re lia b le 3.2. Please tell us how timely, useful and reliable different types of data are for your program. Timely Useful Reliable 3.99 3.93 3.83 3.75 3.63 3.56 3.54 3.5 3.48 3.47 3.4 3.3 3.26 3.23 3.16 3.12 3.07 3.06 Financial Data Financial Data Operational Data Operational Data Non-Admin Data Non-Admin Data PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES PERFORMANCE OUTCOMES 17
Str ongly Suppor te d Issue s – and T hose T hat Ar e Not… 18
Of All Surve y T o pic s, Re spo nde nts F e e l Stro ng ly Ab o ut 6.5. Should state governments and federal agencies 5.2. Please rate the impact of the executive and share data and automate interactions more than legislative directives on your day-to-day lives they do today? ST AT E S AND F E DS SHOUL D SHARE DAT A IMPACT ON DAY-T O- DAY L IVE S AND AUT OMAT E INT E RACT IONS MORE 5 5 4 4 3 3 Score 2 2 1 1 0 0 Uniform Data Act Gone Act CAP Goal 8 2017 2018 2019 Guidance 19
L e a de rship is I nte re ste d in Da ta a nd Ana lytic s 4.1. To what extent are your executive leaders and managers interested in evaluation and data analytics? Program Manager Interest Executive Interest 3.53 Non Government 3.62 3.89 State, Local, Tribal 3.84 4.06 Federal 3.93 2016 2017 2018 2019 5 3.77 3.77 3.75 3.662 3.65 3.61 3.58 3.59 4 3 2 1 0 Executive Leader Interest in Analytics Program Manager Interest in Analytics 20
Re spo nde nts Also Se e k I mpro ve me nt 5.2. How well equipped do you feel your 2.5. To what extent does your organization have the organization is to successfully meet your grant data available and skills needed to develop analyses? program’s mission? SAT ISF ACT ION WIT H SKIL L S CONF IDE NCE IN ABIL IT Y T O ME E T AND DAT A IS NOT HIGH… GRANT PROGRAM MISSION IS Skills Score Data Score HIGH, BUT CONT INUE S T O SL IP Identifying and managing risks 3.17 2016 2017 2018 2019 that program goals will not be 2.93 accomplished 5 3.1 Evaluating performance of 4 3.77 3.75 3.58 current grantees 2.52 3.43 3 Evaluating and selecting 2.45 grantees from amongst 2.45 applicants 2 Determining best practices and 2.62 1 lessons learned to share 2.47 amongst grantees 0 Key: 5 = extremely satisfied 1 = extremely dissatisfied 21
Recommend
More recommend
