Grants Policy Committee October 28, 2008 Stakeholder Webcast Feedback Results
All data reflects participation as of November 12, 2008. Sign-in Data – Stakeholders from all 50 States and the District of Columbia participated in the Webcast. – More than 79% of people who logged-in to the Webcast were participating for the first time. – 82% of viewers were non-federal (see the graph below for more details). – 97% plan to participate in future Webcasts.
Contractor 3% State Government 26% Non-profit 14%
Local Government 11%
Other 4% Tribal Government 1% Federal Government 18%
Participation Data – 477 viewers logged-in across the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) network. – 1478 viewers logged-in outside of the HUD network. – 1955 total viewers participated in the October 2008 GPC Stakeholder Webcast. Webcast Satisfaction – 130 participants provided feedback on the Webcast through a non-mandatory survey. – Participants had the opportunity to rate aspects of the Webcast as Poor, Satisfactory, or Excellent. – 88% rated the Webcast as Satisfactory or Excellent overall. – Satisfaction with the GPC Implementation Plan and next steps discussion was 89% overall. – Satisfaction with the Transparency Act Subaward Pilot discussion was 90% overall. Common Feedback Themes – Webcast was informative. – Continue webcasts; viewers look forward to participating in the future. – Provide more substance related to Implementation Plan and Transparency Act Implementation in the future. – Continue to update the stakeholder community on the details of Transparency Act, GPC, and the Grants Management Line of Business (GMLOB). – Make the presentation available in alternative formats to print and listen to at a later time. – Improve technical aspects of the Webcast.
Additional Topics of Interest to Participants – Establish Grantee advisory Committee on Transparency Act and other policies that impact [grantees] – OMB Guidance on Lobbying – Grant Payment Systems – Forum on Risks to a one-stop shop – Changes in terms and conditions of federal grants - such as replacing expanded authorities with eSNAPS. – Bringing consistency to the [financial] application forms, and clarifying terminology - not all the same between for-profits, non-profits, and academic institutions – Transparency Act (implementation, database issues, maintenance, and subaward pilot update) – Policies which will increase grantee burden – eSubmissions – Subrecipient monitoring – Impact of election and proposed legislation.