Study of Experiences and Needs 

of Rural Education Achievement 

Program Grantees
 
 

Study of Experiences and Needs of

Rural Education Achievement Program Grantees

December 2016

Prepared for:

Policy and Program Studies Service

U.S. Department of Education

400 Maryland Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20202

Prepared by:

Rebecca Anne Schmidt, Ph.D.

Kyra Caspary, Ph.D.

Deborah Jonas, Ph.D.

SRI International 
This report was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No. ED-PEP-11-O-0090 with SRI 

International. Andrew Abrams served as the contracting officer’s representative. The views expressed 

herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department of Education. No official 

endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product, commodity, service, or enterprise 

mentioned in this publication is intended or should be inferred. For the reader’s convenience, this 

publication contains information about and from outside organizations, including hyperlinks and URLs. 

Inclusion of such information does not constitute an endorsement by the Department.

U.S. Department of Education

John B. King, Jr.

Secretary

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Amy McIntosh

Deputy Assistant Secretary 

Delegated Duties of Assistant Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service

Jennifer Bell-Ellwanger

Director

December 2016

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While 

permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of 

Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, 

Study of Experiences and Needs of Rural Education Achievement Program Grantees, Washington, D.C., 

2016.

This report is available on the Department’s website at: 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#rural

Availability of Alternate Formats

Requests for documents in alternate formats such as Braille or large print should be submitted to the 

Alternate Format Center by calling 202-260-0852 or by contacting the 504 coordinator via email at 

om_eeos@ed.gov.

Notice to Limited English Proficient Persons

If you have difficulty understanding English you may request language assistance services for 

Department information that is available to the public. These language assistance services are available 

free of charge. If you need more information about interpretation or translation services, please call 

1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) (TTY: 1-800-437-0833), or email us at: 

Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov. Or write to: U.S. Department of Education, Information Resource 

Center, LBJ Education Building, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20202.

Content Contact:

Andrew Abrams

Phone: 202-401-1232

Email: Andrew.Abrams@ed.gov
i

Contents

List of Exhibits.............................................................................................................................................. iii

Note to the Reader ....................................................................................................................................... v

Executive Summary..................................................................................................................................... vii

Key Findings ........................................................................................................................................... viii

Study Design........................................................................................................................................... viii

State Role in Eligibility and Award Process for REAP............................................................................. viii

District Use of REAP Funds........................................................................................................................ x

REAP-Flex .................................................................................................................................................. x

Grantee Recommendations for Improving REAP..................................................................................... xi

Chapter 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1

Key Features of the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP)........................................................ 1

Scope of the Report .................................................................................................................................. 9

Study Methods........................................................................................................................................ 10

Respondent Background......................................................................................................................... 11

Study Limitation...................................................................................................................................... 11

Report Structure ..................................................................................................................................... 11

Chapter 2. State Role in Eligibility and Award Process for REAP ................................................................ 13

Determining Eligibility and Award Amounts for REAP............................................................................ 13

Technical Assistance on Eligibility and Awards....................................................................................... 17

REAP Coordinator Challenges in the Eligibility and Award Process........................................................ 18

Chapter 3. District Use of REAP Funds........................................................................................................ 23

Use of REAP Funds.................................................................................................................................. 24

Technical Assistance on Using REAP Funds ............................................................................................ 29

Challenges in Using REAP Funds............................................................................................................. 30

Chapter 4. REAP-Flex................................................................................................................................... 33

State and District Coordinators’ Awareness and Understanding of the REAP-Flex Provision................33

Use of REAP-Flex ..................................................................................................................................... 36

Challenges in Using REAP-Flex ................................................................................................................ 39

Chapter 5. Grantee Recommendations for Improving REAP...................................................................... 43

References .................................................................................................................................................. 45
ii 

APPENDIX A: Full Text of the ESEA, as Amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Title VI, Part B – 

Rural Education Initiative....................................................................................................................... 47

APPENDIX B: Methodology .........................................................................................................................55 

APPENDIX C: State REAP Coordinator Interview Guide ..............................................................................59

APPENDIX D: District REAP Coordinator Survey .........................................................................................69

APPENDIX E: District REAP Coordinator Interview Guide...........................................................................97

APPENDIX F: Standard Error Tables and Other Supporting Data..............................................................107
iii

Exhibits

Exhibit 1. Statutory differences between SRSA and RLIS.......................................................................... 2

Exhibit 2. Typical sequence of REAP grant-making ................................................................................... 3

Exhibit 3. Average daily attendance, district poverty rates, and locale codes of all SRSA- and RLISeligible districts, 2014–15.......................................................................................................... 4

Exhibit 4. States with majority SRSA-eligible, majority RLIS-eligible , only SRSA-eligible, only RLISeligible, and no districts eligible for funding, 2014–15 ............................................................. 5

Exhibit 5. Total awards, number of states and districts receiving awards, average award amount, and 

average per-pupil amount, by program type and fiscal year, fiscal years 2007–08, 2009–10, 

and 2014–15.............................................................................................................................. 7

Exhibit 6. Number of SRSA and RLIS districts, total award, average award amount per district, and 

average per-pupil amount, by state, 2014–15.......................................................................... 8

Exhibit 7. SRSA districts that reported their state encouraged, required, or allowed them to verify 

ADA data before the state submitted data to the Department, 2014–15..............................14

Exhibit 8. Number of states with RLIS-eligible districts requiring them to take various steps to 

receive subgrants, 2014–15 .................................................................................................... 15

Exhibit 9. Number of states with more than one RLIS-eligible district whose subgrant formulas 

included various types of district data, 2014–15 .................................................................... 17

Exhibit 10. Percentage of SRSA and RLIS districts reporting that they had finished budget planning 

after they knew their eligibility or award amount for REAP, 2014–15 ...................................20

Exhibit 11. Percentage of various types of district personnel involved in deciding how to spend SRSA 

and RLIS funds, 2014–15 ......................................................................................................... 24

Exhibit 12. Percentage of SRSA and RLIS districts that reported various uses for their REAP funds, 

2014–15................................................................................................................................... 26

Exhibit 13. Percentage of SRSA and RLIS districts that reported targeting REAP funds to particular 

student groups, 2014–15 ........................................................................................................ 28

Exhibit 14. The source of the assistance for SRSA and RLIS districts receiving technical assistance, 

2014–15................................................................................................................................... 30

Exhibit 15. Percentage of REAP districts that reported various levels of challenge in using REAP funds, 

2014–15................................................................................................................................... 31
iv

Exhibit 16. Percentage of SRSA district coordinators who reported hearing about REAP-Flex from 

various sources, 2014–15........................................................................................................ 34

Exhibit 17. Usefulness of information sources to coordinators in deciding whether to use REAP-Flex, 

2014–15................................................................................................................................... 35

Exhibit 18. SRSA district coordinators reporting their district used REAP-Flex in 2014–15........................36

Exhibit 19. SRSA district coordinators’ reports of the functional uses of REAP-Flex, 2014–15 ..................38

Exhibit 20. The ESEA programs for which REAP-Flex districts used their Title II, Part A funds, 

2014–15................................................................................................................................... 39

Exhibit 21. Factors contributing to SRSA districts’ decisions not to use REAP-Flex, 2014–15....................40

Exhibit 22. SRSA district coordinators’ reports of how changes to REAP-Flex would affect their 

interest in using the option, 2014–15 ..................................................................................... 41
v

Note to the Reader

This report discusses findings and recommendations on the Rural Education Achievement Program 

(REAP) as authorized in 2001 under Title VI, Part B of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 

1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Data collection for this study 

took place in 2014–15, before the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in December 2015; 

the ESSA reauthorized and amended the ESEA, including REAP, which was moved to Title V, Part B of 

theESEA. Therefore, the findings and recommendations in this report, as well as descriptions of REAP 

provisions and practices, reflect the program as authorized in 2001 and do not represent the program 

under the ESEA as amended by the ESSA. Unless otherwise indicated, all references in this document to 

the ESEA are to the ESEA as amended by NCLB.

Note that some districts and states expressed challenges or made recommendations related to aspects 

of the program that are set by statute and are therefore beyond the authority of the Department to 

address. Readers interested in the statutory changes discussed above may consult the ESSA revisions to 

ESEA at http://www2.ed.gov/documents/essa-act-of-1965.pdf, Title V, Part B, beginning at section 

5201. If you have specific questions about the effect of the ESSA on REAP, please email 

essa.questions@ed.gov. Finally, we note that this report is not intended to reflect best practices. It 

describes conditions as they existed at the time of data collection, but the inclusion of a description of 

state or district practices does not necessarily mean that all practices comply with the law governing 

REAP, or that the Department approves all practices described.
vi
vii

Executive Summary

Nationally, 28 percent of all public elementary and secondary schools were in rural locations in 2013–14, 

serving 18 percent of all K–12 students (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 

Statistics 2015). Rural schools serve students in sparsely populated areas and have smaller overall 

populations than schools in other communities. Rural school districts often face unique challenges such 

as geographic isolation, shortages of qualified educators, and underdeveloped infrastructure, including 

technology systems (Consortium for School Networking 2016; Porowski and Howley 2013). 

Congress established the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP) to provide flexible funding to 

help rural districts address these challenges and serve students more effectively.1 REAP is composed of

two programs: the Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program and the Rural and Low-Income 

School (RLIS) program. Of the two programs, SRSA supports smaller and more isolated districts, and it 

provides additional funding and the opportunity for these districts to exercise “REAP-Flex” authority. 

REAP-Flex allows SRSA-eligible districts to use certain specific federal formula funds to support local 

activities under an array of other federal formula programs to assist them in addressing local academic 

needs more effectively.

2 RLIS serves rural districts that are generally slightly larger but have substantial 

concentrations of poverty, and it provides additional funding only, not the authority to exercise REAPFlex.

The U.S. Department of Education (the Department) awards SRSA grants directly to eligible districts on 

the basis of a statutory formula, whereas the Department provides RLIS formula allocations to state 

education agencies, which in turn make subgrants to eligible districts, either by formula or by 

competition.

This study’s objective was to examine state and district practices and perspectives regarding REAP: the 

roles states and districts play in verifying the accuracy of the data used to determine district eligibility 

for REAP funds, how districts use REAP funds and REAP-Flex, and states’ and districts’ recommendations 

for improving program operations. We note that this report is not intended to reflect best practices. It 

describes conditions as they existed at the time of data collection, but the inclusion of a description of 

state or district practices does not necessarily mean that all practices comply with the law governing 

REAP, nor that the Department approves all practices described. In addition, some challenges and 

grantee recommendations discussed in this report are in response to provisions set by statute and/or 

controlled by Congress which are outside the authority of the Department to address.

 1 REAP was authorized in 2001 as Title VI, Part B of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, as amended 

by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). In 2015, the program was reauthorized and amended by the Every Student 

Succeeds Act (ESSA) as Title V, Part B of the ESEA. Data collection for this study took place in 2014–15, before the passage of

the ESSA, which amended the program and relocated it under Title V, Part B. Therefore, the findings and recommendations 

in this report, as well as descriptions of REAP provisions and practices, reflect the program as authorized in 2001 and do not 

represent the program under the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. Unless otherwise indicated, all references in this 

document to the ESEA are to the ESEA as amended by NCLB. 2 At the time of this study, the only funded program eligible for REAP-Flex was Title II, Part A. However, the statute also 

allowed SRSA-eligible local education agencies to exercise their REAP-Flex authority with funds from three other ESEA 

programs — Title II, Part D; Title IV, Part A; and Title V, Part A (see ESEA section 6211). 
viii

Key Findings

• States supported the Department in determining REAP eligibility by providing district-level data 

and reviewing the accuracy of Department-provided data.

• All 43 states with RLIS-eligible districts chose to make subgrants to districts on the basis of a 

funding formula rather than on a competitive basis, and 28 of these states based the subgrant

amount entirely on average daily attendance (ADA).

• Districts most frequently used SRSA and RLIS funds to improve or expand access to technology 

(71 percent of SRSA districts and 71 percent of RLIS districts) and to provide educator 

professional development (45 percent of SRSA districts and 58 percent of RLIS districts).

• Forty-six percent of SRSA district coordinators reported exercising REAP-Flex; of these,

82 percent reported that they used funds eligible for REAP-Flex to maintain a stable level of 

funding for ongoing activities.

• The majority of both district and state REAP coordinators were highly satisfied with REAP as a 

whole. However, they provided recommendations for improvement to REAP in three categories: 

(1) improved timelines for eligibility and award determination, (2) more information on 

allowable uses of funds and REAP-Flex, and (3) revised eligibility criteria.

Study Design

The study questions were the following:

1. What role do states play in supporting the Department’s SRSA and RLIS eligibility and award

determination process?

2. How do districts use their SRSA or RLIS funds?

3. To what extent do SRSA-eligible districts use REAP-Flex and for what purposes?

4. What recommendations do states and districts have for improving the operation of the SRSA 

and RLIS programs?

To address these questions, the study team conducted telephone interviews with state REAP 

coordinators in the 47 states that reported districts drawing down REAP funds in FY 2014, surveys of

district coordinators in nationally representative samples of 669 SRSA grantees and 336 RLIS 

subgrantees, and follow-up telephone interviews with a subsample of 24 district coordinators who 

completed the surveys. All 47 states participated in the state interviews, and the combined response 

rate for the district surveys was 95 percent. Data collection took place between March and June 2015.

State Role in Eligibility and Award Process for REAP

To determine districts’ eligibility for SRSA and RLIS, the Department asks state education agencies to 

provide data on ADA and review for accuracy the Department-provided data on districts’ rural status 

and poverty rates. If the state chooses, it may provide for SRSA districts only county population density

as an alternative to schools’ ADA as a measure of size and a state rural designation as an alternative to 

NCES locale codes as a measure of ruralness.
ix

Nearly all states that received REAP funds reported reviewing the Department-provided data for 

accuracy and/or providing additional data, including ADA. Forty-three states reported reviewing the 

Department-provided data for accuracy. Of the four coordinators that did not review the data, three 

state coordinators said that they assumed the data were correct and did not review them, and one state 

coordinator did not know whether the state reviewed the data because that responsibility belonged to 

other staff.

All 47 states reported providing additional data: 37 of these states reported obtaining and submitting 

data on ADA from state databases alone, five states obtained this information directly from districts, and 

two from a combination of district and state sources. Three states submitted the data, but the 

respondents were not directly responsible for obtaining the data and did not know the source.

The majority of states did not require a formal planning process from RLIS-eligible districts 

to receive their funds.

Of the 43 states with RLIS subgrantees, 18 required a formal planning process, 22 states required only a 

request, and three states required neither a request nor a formal planning process for their RLIS districts 

to receive funds.

All 43 states with RLIS-eligible districts chose to make subgrants to districts on the basis of 

a funding formula rather than on a competitive basis, and most of these states based the 

subgrant formula entirely on ADA.

Of the 43 states with RLIS-eligible subgrantees, all decided to award funds by formula rather than by 

competition. The majority of states (28 states) based formula awards entirely on ADA, three states used 

both ADA and poverty data, and two states used only poverty data in their formula. Six state REAP 

coordinators were not responsible for administering the formula, which was the responsibility of others 

in the state, and therefore did not know which data were used to determine RLIS subgrant amounts.

Finally, four states had only one RLIS-eligible district and therefore awarded all RLIS funds to that one 

district. Although most states did not comment on why they chose to use a formula rather than a 

competition, four states said that they chose a formula to reduce the burden on state and district 

offices.

Although the majority of district and state REAP coordinators did not experience any 

challenges in the eligibility or award determination and notification process, some 

expressed concerns about criteria used for determining eligibility, the timing of notification, 

and states’ ability to provide technical assistance to their districts.

The majority of SRSA (59 percent) and RLIS (54 percent) district coordinators reported that they 

experienced no challenges in finding out whether their districts were eligible for REAP awards. Likewise, 

34 of 47 state REAP coordinators did not identify any challenges in the eligibility determination and

notification process. 

Nonetheless, some REAP coordinators encountered challenges in eligibility determination or

notification. Seven state coordinators expressed concerns about the poverty and rural locale code 

criteria that the statute requires the Department to use to determine eligibility for REAP. Additionally, 

two-fifths of district coordinators reported they had finished their budget planning before they knew 

their award amount for REAP (44 percent of SRSA coordinators and 35 percent of RLIS coordinators). 

Finally, six state coordinators noted challenges answering SRSA districts’ questions about the federal

eligibility award process. 
x

District Use of REAP Funds

REAP districts most frequently used their funds to improve or expand access to technology 

and to provide educator professional development.

The most frequently reported uses of REAP funds were to improve or expand access to technology 

(71 percent of SRSA coordinators and 71 percent of RLIS coordinators) and to provide educator 

professional development (45 percent of SRSA coordinators and 58 percent of RLIS coordinators).

In keeping with REAP’s purpose as a supplemental funding stream, half of SRSA districts (51 percent) 

reported using the funds in combination with other funds from the Department, and 33 percent used 

REAP funds in combination with E-Rate.

3 Similarly, 58 percent of RLIS district coordinators reported 

using REAP funds in combination with other funds from the Department, and 23 percent reported using 

them in combination with E-Rate.

More than half of REAP district coordinators reported targeting the use of REAP funds to 

improve the educational outcomes of particular subgroups of students.

Fifty-four percent of SRSA and 66 percent of RLIS district coordinators reported that they targeted funds 

to support specific student subgroups, such as low-performing students (87 percent of SRSA districts 

that targeted funds, 86 percent of RLIS districts that targeted funds), low-income students (70 percent 

SRSA, 78 percent RLIS), students with disabilities (40 percent SRSA, 28 percent RLIS), and English 

learners (29 percent SRSA, 33 percent RLIS).

REAP-Flex

The majority of district REAP coordinators reported being aware of REAP-Flex, but in 

interviews several coordinators provided examples that were inconsistent with the 

provision.

Seventy-three percent of SRSA district coordinators reported they were aware of the REAP-Flex

provision before reading the survey’s description of it, and 76 percent of SRSA coordinators reported 

they understood the provision to a moderate or great extent. In interviews, however, six of eight 

coordinators who reported understanding REAP-Flex described it in ways that were inconsistent with 

the provision, usually describing it as involving SRSA funds as opposed to using formula funds from other 

specific federal formula programs.

SRSA districts most commonly exercised their REAP-Flex authority to maintain a stable 

level of funding for ongoing activities.

Forty-six percent of SRSA district coordinators reported exercising their REAP-Flex authority in the 

2014–15 school year; of these districts, 82 percent used it to maintain a stable level of funding for 

 3 Also known as the Schools and Libraries Program, E-Rate, operated by the Federal Communications Commission, provides 

funds for schools to purchase discounted Internet and telecommunications services (Federal Communications Commission 

2016).
xi

activities. Sixty-seven percent of SRSA district coordinators whose districts reported exercising their

REAP-Flex authority reported using Title II, Part A funds to support activities under Title I, Part A.

SRSA districts that did not exercise their REAP-Flex authority reported lack of awareness 

and lack of information about the provision as reasons.

In districts that did not report exercising their REAP-Flex authority, 32 percent of coordinators reported 

they were not aware of the option, and 33 percent reported they did not have enough information to 

make an informed decision about whether or not to exercise it.

4

Grantee Recommendations for Improving REAP

The majority of district and state REAP coordinators were highly satisfied with REAP as a 

whole. 

Overall, 39 of 47 state REAP coordinators were somewhat or very satisfied with REAP, and 40 of 47 were 

somewhat or very satisfied with the Department’s administration of the program. Nearly all SRSA 

district coordinators (93 percent) and RLIS district coordinators (96 percent) were highly or moderately 

satisfied with REAP. 

Districts and states had recommendations for improvement to REAP in three categories: 

(1) improved timelines for eligibility and award determination, (2) more information on 

allowable uses of funds and REAP-Flex, and (3) revised eligibility criteria. 

In interviews, state and district coordinators identified some recommendations for improving REAP. 

First, grantees recommended that the Department revise the eligibility determination and award 

timeline so that it aligns more closely with other ESEA funding and their own budget cycles. Second, 

both state and district REAP coordinators wanted more information about the program, particularly the 

REAP-Flex provision and allowable uses. Additionally, districts acknowledged that the allowable uses of 

REAP funds are broad, but they also indicated a desire for more allowable uses for REAP dollars. RLIS 

district coordinators also reported they would greatly value the kind of authority offered by REAP-Flex, 

which is currently available only to SRSA districts. Finally, state coordinators suggested changes to 

certain eligibility criteria, such as revising the rural locale codes used in eligibility determination and 

considering flexibility in the measures used to determine poverty rates. State coordinators were 

interested in the Department’s applying or allowing the use of methods for measuring poverty rates that 

are less sensitive to year-to-year fluctuations and are therefore more likely to keep districts with poverty 

rates that are close to the 20 percent poverty threshold from dropping in and out of eligibility.

 4 These proportions are not mutually exclusive. A proportion of those who reported not having enough information also

reported not knowing the option existed.
xii
1

Chapter 1. Introduction

Nationally, 28 percent of all public elementary and secondary schools were in rural locations in 2013–14, 

serving 18 percent of all K–12 students (Glander, 2015). Rural schools serve students in sparsely 

populated areas and have smaller overall populations than schools in other communities. These schools 

are located in incorporated communities or census-designated places with a population density of less 

than 25,000. Rural school districts often face unique challenges, such as geographic isolation, shortages 

of qualified educators, and underdeveloped infrastructure, including technology systems (Consortium 

for School Networking 2016; Horrigan 2014; Porowski and Howley 2013). 

Key Features of the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP) 

The Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP) was authorized in 2001 under Title VI, Part B of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act

(NCLB) (see Appendix A for the full text of the statutory authority). In 2015, the Every Student Succeeds 

Act (ESSA) reauthorized and amended the program, relocating it in Title V, Part B of the ESEA. This study 

used data collected before the reauthorization of REAP by the ESSA. Therefore, the findings in this 

report, recommendations from grantees, and descriptions of REAP provisions and practices reflect the 

program as authorized under the ESEA, as amended by NCLB, and do not reflect current law.5

The purpose of REAP is to help address the unique needs of rural districts, based on concerns that their 

formula grants may be too small for them to use effectively and that they may lack the capacity to 

compete successfully against larger districts for federal competitive grants. As defined under REAP prior 

to amendments by the ESSA, rural schools may be in small towns characterized as having populations 

between 2,500 and 25,000 (locale 6) or in smaller communities with populations of fewer than 2,500 

people (locale 7 or 8) (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics 2016). 

REAP includes two programs, the Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program and the Rural and 

Low-Income School (RLIS) program. Of the two programs, SRSA supports smaller districts, those that 

have the lowest population densities and that are remote from urban centers. SRSA provides these 

districts with supplemental funds and with flexibility to spend funding from certain ESEA formula

programs on alternative uses through a provision called REAP-Flex. RLIS serves rural districts with 

relatively larger ADA, including small towns that have substantial concentrations of poverty. 

The two programs have similar purposes, but they differ in four key dimensions (Exhibit 1): eligibility 

criteria (e.g., average daily attendance), funding and program administration, allowable uses of funds, 

and an option for SRSA districts to use REAP-Flex. REAP-Flex does not provide additional funds; rather, it

 5 For specific information about changes to NCLB in current law, please consult the markup version of the ESEA which strikes 

certain REAP provisions in NCLB and replaces them with REAP provisions in the ESSA, at 

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/essa/legislation/title-v.pdf, beginning at section 5201. This document was compiled 

by the Division of Legislative Counsel (DLC) in the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) of the Department of Education. The 

document is not an official statement of the law and is not a substitute for the text of the ESEA as reflected in the Statutes 

at Large or the U.S. Code. The provision of this link is for reference only, and does not intend to describe changes to 

implementation of the REAP program under the ESSA.
2

provides SRSA-eligible districts with some flexibility in how they use funds from four other federal ESEA

programs (referred to in the statute as “applicable funding”): Improving Teacher Quality State Grants 

(Title II, Part A), Educational Technology State Grants (Title II, Part D), Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 

Communities (Title IV, Part A), and State Grants for Innovative Programs (Title V, Part A).6 SRSA-eligible 

districts may use these funds for the same purposes for which they may use funds they receive under 

SRSA. A complete list of allowable uses of funds is in Exhibit 1.

Exhibit 1. Statutory differences between SRSA and RLIS

SRSA RLIS

Eligibility criteria Average daily attendance (ADA) under 600 

OR population density of less than 10 

persons per square mile

AND

Serve only schools that have a National 

Center for Education Statistics (NCES) locale 

codea of 7 or 8 OR are located in an area 

defined as rural by a government agency of 

the state.

20 percent or more of children age 

5 through 17 are from families with incomes 

below the poverty line

AND

Serve only schools that have an NCES locale 

code of 6, 7, or 8 

AND

Are ineligible for SRSA.

Funding and 

administration

The Department awards formula grants 

directly to eligible districts.

The Department awards formula grants to 

states, which subgrant the funds to eligible 

districts.

Allowable uses of 

funds

Districts may use their funds for local 

activities authorized under the following 

ESEA programs: 

• Improving Academic Achievement of 

the Disadvantaged (Title I, Part A)

• Improving Teacher Quality State Grants 

(Title II, Part A)

• Educational Technology State Grants 

(Title II, Part D)

• Language Instruction for Limited 

English Proficient and Immigrant 

Students (Title III)

• Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 

Communities (Title IV, Part A)

• 21st Century Community Learning 

Centers (Title IV, Part B)

• State Grants for Innovative Programs 

(Title V, Part A)

Districts may use RLIS funds for:

• Activities authorized under Title I, Part A 

(Improving Academic Achievement of 

the Disadvantaged)

• Teacher recruitment and retention

• Teacher professional development

• Educational technology that meets the 

requirements of Title II, Part D

• Activities authorized under Title III 

(Language Instruction for Limited 

English Proficient and Immigrant 

Students)

• Activities authorized under Safe and 

Drug-Free Schools and Communities 

(Title IV, Part A)

• Parental involvement activities

REAP-Flex Available Not available a Before 2006, NCES used eight locale codes to describe geographic locations on a continuum that ranges from “large city” to “rural.” A locale 

code of 6 denotes a small town with a population between 2,500 and 25,000, a locale code of 7 denotes a rural area that is not near a city, and 

a locale code of 8 denotes a rural area near a city.

Source: ESEA as amended by NCLB, Title VI, Part B. 

 6 At the time of data collection for this study, only Title II, Part A was funded.
3

Determining Eligibility for REAP

The Department, through the Office of School Support and Rural Programs (SSRP), determines district 

eligibility for SRSA and RLIS on the basis of statutory criteria related to ruralness and size for SRSA and 

ruralness and poverty for RLIS. SSRP initiates the eligibility determination process (Exhibit 2), and states 

play a role by reviewing federal data for accuracy and providing additional data. Districts also play a role

in that states may request ADA and other data from them and may ask them to verify any of the data 

elements used to determine REAP eligibility.

Exhibit 2. Typical sequence of REAP grant-making

Step Activity

1: Data collection SSRP receives data from NCES with district-level locale codes and percentage 

of children from families in poverty. SSRP incorporates these data into 

preliminary REAP eligibility spreadsheets by state.

2: Technical assistance SSRP holds a series of teleconferences and webinars with state offices to 

discuss their roles and responsibilities for reviewing and submitting data 

required to determine eligibility for SRSA and RLIS grants. 

3: State data submission States review data from SSRP and provide additional district-level data 

necessary to determine SRSA and RLIS eligibility. Data provided by SSRP 

include district locale code, poverty rate, and operational status. States

verify the data provided by SSRP and report district ADA; Title II, Part A funds 

for the prior year; and optional state rural designations and county 

population density.

4: Grant eligibility identification SSRP determines grantee eligibility for SRSA and RLIS grants, posts eligibility 

spreadsheets on the SSRP website, and requests that states verify the 

eligibility status of their districts. SSRP solicits and processes applications 

from districts not previously participating in SRSA.

5: Formula award determination The Department uses the finalized list of SRSA- and RLIS-eligible grantees to 

calculate the grant award allocations.

6: Disbursement of grant awards SSRP issues the grant award notification to SRSA and RLIS grantees.

Source: Communication with REAP Team Leader, Office of School Support and Rural Programs, spring 2016.

SRSA-eligible districts must be small: They must have an ADA7 under 600 students, or they must serve 

schools in counties with a population density of less than 10 persons per square mile. In addition, to be 

eligible for SRSA all the schools in the district must be rural: They must be in locales designated as a rural 

area (locale code 7 or 8), or its state must define it as rural using an alternative state-defined 

designation.8

RLIS-eligible districts must be rural and low income. Rural districts that are too large to qualify for SRSA 

funds may qualify for RLIS if 20 percent or more of the children in the district come from families with 

incomes below the federal poverty line. Districts with schools in small town locales (locale code 6) are 

 7 Average daily attendance, or students in average daily attendance, is defined as the aggregate number of days of 

attendance of all students during a school year divided by the number of days school is in session during that year. See ESEA

section 9101(1). 8 Under section 6211(b)(2) of the ESEA, the Secretary of Education may waive the locale code requirements if a district is 

located in an area defined as rural by a governmental agency of the state. 
4

eligible for RLIS, in addition to those with schools in rural locales (7 and 8). Some districts may meet the 

eligibility requirements for both SRSA and RLIS in a given year; that is, a district may meet the criteria for 

SRSA and also have a high concentration of families in poverty that makes it eligible for RLIS. However, 

per the statute, if a district is eligible for awards under both programs, it receives only an SRSA award.

9

In 2014–15, the mean ADA of SRSA-eligible districts was 295 students, whereas the mean ADA of RLIS 

districts was roughly seven times larger, at 1,957 students (Exhibit 3). The average poverty rate for RLISeligible districts was 28 percent, compared with 20 percent in SRSA-eligible districts.

More than half of RLIS-eligible districts in 2014–15 had schools designated as locale code 6, whereas 

only 4 percent of SRSA districts had schools of this locale code.10 RLIS-eligible districts were thus 

comparatively larger and less isolated but also higher in poverty than SRSA-eligible districts (Exhibit 3).

Exhibit 3. Average daily attendance, district poverty rates, and locale codes of all SRSA- and RLIS-eligible 

districts, 2014–15

District characteristics SRSA-eligible districts RLIS-eligible districts

Mean ADA 295 students 1,957 students

Average proportion of children from families 

in poverty 20% 28%

Distribution by locale code

6 (small town) 4% 55%

7 (rural not in vicinity of a city) 69% 56%

8 (rural in vicinity of a city) 27% 15%

Exhibit reads: The average SRSA-eligible district had an ADA of 295 students. 

Note: Locale code percentages for RLIS sum to more than 100 because a district may have more than one locale code among its schools. The Ns 

are 4,269 to 4,650 SRSA-eligible and 1,947 to 2,010 RLIS-eligible districts. The Ns vary by row because not all districts provided data for each 

row in this table.

Source: U.S. Department of Education, SRSA Program, 2016; U.S. Department of Education, RLIS Program, 2016.

A total of 49 states had either RLIS- or SRSA-eligible districts or both in 2014–15. Forty states had both 

RLIS- and SRSA-eligible districts. States in the Southeast were more likely to have the majority or all of 

their REAP-eligible districts eligible for RLIS funds, whereas states in the West, Midwest, and Northeast 

were more likely to have a majority of SRSA-eligible districts (Exhibit 4). Five states had only SRSAeligible districts (Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont), and four had only 

RLIS-eligible districts (Florida, Maryland, South Carolina, and West Virginia). Hawaii and the District of 

Columbia did not have any districts eligible for REAP funds in 2014–15.

 9

 Some SRSA-eligible districts may not receive funds for the fiscal year because the formula generates a $0 award that year. 

These districts are still eligible for REAP-Flex. 10 These districts were eligible for SRSA because they were in an area defined as rural under an alternative state definition.
5 

Exhibit 4. States with majority SRSA-eligible, majority RLIS-eligible , only SRSA-eligible, only RLIS-eligible, and 

no districts eligible for funding, 2014–15

Exhibit reads: In Washington state in 2014–15, the majority of REAP districts were eligible for SRSA funds, but 

some were eligible for RLIS funds. 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, SRSA Program, 2016; U.S. Department of Education, RLIS Program, 2016. 

Funding and Program Administration 

The statutory funding formulas and program administration approaches for SRSA and RLIS are different. 

For SRSA, the statute directs the Department to use a formula based on ADA and district subgrant 

amounts under Title II-A allocations11 to calculate SRSA allocations and award grants directly to eligible 

districts. For RLIS, the statute directs the Department to use an ADA-based formula to allocate funds to 

state education agencies. States in turn make RLIS subgrants to eligible districts by competition or 

formula (after retaining up to 5 percent of the funds for administrative costs and the provision of 

technical assistance to eligible districts). 

 

11 By statute, other formula funds are a part of the SRSA award calculation. However, those other programs (Title II-D, 

Title IV-A, and Title V-A) were not funded in the 2014–15 school year.
6

The SRSA and RLIS programs also have separate application processes. SRSA-eligible districts are 

required to submit an application to the Department for funds only once, in the first year they receive 

funds. Thereafter, states submit updated district eligibility data annually to the Department. In 

subsequent years, as long as a district continues to be eligible for SRSA, the Department automatically 

rolls its application into the new fiscal year. However, depending on fund availability, the local education

agency, although eligible with a current application on file, might not receive funds for the fiscal year 

because the formula generates a $0 award that year. To receive and distribute RLIS funds, states are 

required to submit an initial application to the Department, which they update annually with district 

eligibility data, as with SRSA. RLIS districts receive subgrants from their states and so do not submit an 

application to the Department. States, however, can require a state application from their RLIS-eligible 

districts, and they award RLIS funds to districts by competition or formula, as discussed in Chapter 2.

For the 2014–15 school year, the Department awarded $84.9 million in SRSA funds to 4,276 districts 

across 45 states. In that year, the Department awarded $84.1 million in RLIS funds to 44 states with RLISeligible districts, and states allocated these funds to approximately 2,000 districts (Exhibit 5). Across the 

two programs, REAP funds were awarded to districts in 49 states.12 The average SRSA district award was 

$19,860, or $75 per pupil (Exhibit 5). There is a $60,000 statutory cap on SRSA allocations. The estimated 

average RLIS subgrant was $41,722, or $21 per pupil.

Although the average RLIS award was larger than the average SRSA award at the district level, the

estimated per-pupil amount was smaller in RLIS districts ($21 per pupil) than in SRSA districts ($75 per 

pupil) because RLIS districts are on average larger than SRSA districts. Additionally, although the total 

amount of RLIS and SRSA funds has remained relatively stable, the number of RLIS-eligible districts has 

increased since at least the 2007–08 school year. Therefore, the average RLIS district award has 

decreased from $67,052 to $41,722, and the average RLIS per-pupil amount has decreased from $33 to 

$21, a change of almost 40 percent (see Exhibit 5). Although a similar pattern can be seen in SRSA 

districts, the change was not as large.

 12 Hawaii and the District of Columbia did not have any districts eligible for REAP in 2014–15. 
7

Exhibit 5. Total awards, number of states and districts receiving awards, average award amount, and average 

per-pupil amount, by program type and fiscal year, fiscal years 2007–08, 2009–10, and 2014–15

 2007–08 2009–10 2014–15

Total awards

SRSA (awards to districts) $84.5 million $86.5 million $84.9 million

RLIS (awards to states) $83.5 million $85.8 million $84.1 million

Number of states

SRSA 44 42 45

RLIS 39 41 44

Number of districts

SRSA grantees 4,101 4,105 4,276

RLIS-eligible districts 1,247 1,497 2,015

Average district award

SRSA $20,632 $21,071 $19,860

RLIS (estimated) $67,052 $57,310 $41,722

Average district award per pupil

SRSA $79 $82 $75

RLIS (estimated) $33 $29 $21

Exhibit reads: In 2007–08, rural districts received a total of $84.5 million in SRSA grants.

Note: For SRSA, the exhibit displays the number of districts that actually received SRSA funds; 374 of the 4,650 SRSA-eligible districts received 

no funds in 2014-15 because the formula generated a $0 allocation. For RLIS, the exhibit displays the number of districts that were eligible for 

RLIS funds and estimated RLIS awards because actual subgrant data were not available from the states.

Source: Budget tables supplied by U.S. Department of Education Budget Service, on October 24, 2016. 

Whereas Exhibit 5 shows the total awards and average award amounts for the SRSA and RLIS programs, 

Exhibit 6 shows how these amounts varied by state in the 2014–15 fiscal year. The average district 

award per pupil for SRSA ranged from less than $15 in three states (Alabama, Vermont, and Wyoming) 

to more than $100 in four states (Arizona, California, Massachusetts, and Montana) (Exhibit 6). The 

Department bases RLIS state awards entirely on the ADA of RLIS-eligible districts, so the estimated perpupil allocation for RLIS does not vary by state and is not shown in Exhibit 6. Additionally, Exhibit 6 

displays the number of districts that were eligible for RLIS funds, rather than grantees, because the 

actual subgrant data were not available from the states.
8

Exhibit 6. Number of SRSA and RLIS districts, total award, average award amount per district, and average perpupil amount, by state, 2014–15

 

SRSA 

districts

RLISeligible

districts

Total district

SRSA awards

Total state 

RLIS subgrants

SRSA 

avg/district

RLIS estimated 

avg/district

Average

SRSA/pupil

All states 4,276 2,015 84,920,000 79,867,263 19,860 41,722 75 

Alabama 1 69 5,222 4,016,940 5,222 61,281 11

Alaska 19 1 200,751 82,738 10,566 87,093 62 

Arizona 111 33 2,157,667 859,894 19,438 27,429 103 

Arkansas 57 119 1,367,209 3,153,370 23,986 27,894 53

California 333 49 7,136,211 1,266,820 21,430 27,214 110

Colorado 93 14 1,819,941 565,196 19,569 42,496 73

Connecticut 42 0 1,044,779 0 24,876 0 88

Delaware 1 0 21,491 0 21,491 0 67

District of Columbia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Florida 0 25 0 1,819,700 0 76,619 0

Georgia 2 98 71,215 5,772,855 35,608 62,007 70

Hawaii 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Idaho 65 28 1,245,080 958,982 19,155 36,052 76 

Illinois 253 48 5,169,689 1,118,327 20,434 24,525 72

Indiana 15 48 349,103 1,639,190 23,274 35,947 61

Iowa 145 11 3,798,839 314,097 26,199 30,057 71 

Kansas 160 21 3,408,700 662,636 21,304 33,215 68

Kentucky 11 104 243,806 5,243,053 22,164 53,067 55

Louisiana 6 31 185,401 2,487,449 30,900 84,463 98

Maine 98 52 1,373,968 1,404,561 14,020 28,432 86 

Maryland 0 2 0 202,369 0 106,510 0

Massachusetts 46 1 1,192,713 26,713 25,929 28,119 101

Michigan 146 103 2,571,332 2,586,800 17,612 26,436 72 

Minnesota 161 14 3,328,884 394,875 20,676 29,690 67

Mississippi 3 106 75,372 4,725,910 25,124 46,931 63 

Missouri 266 114 4,788,896 3,065,014 18,003 28,301 67

Montana 326 19 4,895,560 361,654 15,017 20,036 132

Nebraska 181 3 3,708,803 87,190 20,491 30,593 73

Nevada 8 1 159,647 165,133 19,956 173,824 30 

New Hampshire 88 24 1,492,697 682,661 16,962 29,941 69

New Jersey 74 0 1,855,697 0 25,077 0 96 

New Mexico 39 22 580,631 1,004,575 14,888 48,066 60

New York 114 58 1,877,089 1,442,124 16,466 26,173 49

North Carolina 23 56 620,241 5,848,419 26,967 109,933 97 

North Dakota 95 2 867,043 45,791 9,127 24,101 49 

Ohio 79 106 2,688,582 2,964,530 34,033 29,439 85

Oklahoma 315 129 6,714,254 3,331,164 21,315 27,182 75 

Oregon 85 32 1,580,913 1,331,546 18,599 43,801 89 

Pennsylvania 27 40 510,389 1,323,199 18,903 34,821 48

Rhode Island 7 0 111,577 0 15,940 0 68

South Carolina 0 38 0 2,208,570 0 61,179 0

South Dakota 84 4 939,711 74,654 11,187 19,646 42

Tennessee 4 74 99,095 4,274,108 24,774 60,798 59

Texas 419 179 8,832,651 6,357,495 21,080 37,386 68

Utah 21 1 641,675 63,989 30,556 67,357 71

Vermont 1 0 3,068 0 3,068 0 7 

Virginia 2 40 48,138 1,952,273 24,069 51,376 63

Washington 113 34 2,033,446 1,141,831 17,995 35,351 90

West Virginia 0 36 0 2,291,447 0 67,001 0

Wisconsin 132 25 3,078,764 499,825 23,324 21,045 63

Wyoming 5 1 24,060 47,596 4,812 50,101 13

Exhibit reads: There were a total of 4,276 SRSA districts in 2014–15, with a total allocation of $84.9 million.

Note: The total RLIS subgrant amount shown here is 5 percent less than the total allocation shown in Exhibit 5 because states may retain up to 

5 percent of the funds for administrative costs.

Source: Budget tables supplied by U.S. Department of Education Budget Service on October 27, 2016.
9

Allowable Uses of Funds

SRSA and RLIS share many allowable uses of funds (Exhibit 1). Grantees can spend their funds on the 

following general activities: improving academic achievement for disadvantaged students; enhancing 

teacher quality, recruitment, and retention; purchasing or improving educational technology; offering 

language instruction for limited English proficient and immigrant students; and creating safe and drugfree schools and communities. SRSA districts may also use their grants for 21st Century Community 

Learning Centers and innovative programs, whereas RLIS districts may use their funds for parental 

involvement activities.

REAP-Flex

Only SRSA-eligible districts are eligible to exercise the REAP-Flex provision, which provides flexibility in 

how these districts can use certain non-REAP federal formula funds. REAP-Flex does not provide 

additional funds; rather, it allows SRSA-eligible districts to use all funds allocated to them under Title II, 

Part A; Title II, Part D; Title IV, Part A; and Title V, Part A13 for the same list of activities allowed under 

the SRSA grant program (see Exhibit 1). Chapter 4 discusses REAP-Flex in detail.

Scope of the Report

This report describes how grantees used the REAP funds provided through SRSA or RLIS, the technical 

assistance they received, and opportunities afforded and challenges experienced that were associated 

with REAP. The Department had commissioned two prior studies on REAP. The first study, conducted in 

2005–06, focused on districts’ use of REAP-Flex. The results showed that approximately half the eligible 

SRSA districts used REAP-Flex, with nonparticipation resulting from a lack of information. Those that 

exercised their REAP-Flex authority did so to target low-performing student groups, improve technology,

and improve teacher quality (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy 

Development, Policy and Program Studies Service 2007). The second study, conducted in 2009–10, 

examined RLIS program implementation and showed that RLIS districts most often used their funds to 

purchase and use educational technology, to offer pay for teachers and persons who provided

supplemental services, and to find innovative ways to provide professional development for

geographically isolated teachers (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy 

Development, Policy and Program Studies Service 2010). Unlike the two earlier studies, which addressed

REAP-Flex users and RLIS districts, respectively, the current study documented the practices and 

strategies of all grantees receiving REAP funding. Additionally, this study included interviews with REAP 

coordinators in all 47 states reporting SRSA or RLIS districts drawing down funds, providing perspectives

from all states with districts that received REAP funds.

The study questions were the following:

1. What role do states play in supporting the Department’s SRSA and RLIS eligibility and award 

determination process?

2. How do districts use their SRSA or RLIS funds?

 13 At the time of study data collection, only Title II, Part A was funded.
10

3. To what extent do SRSA-eligible districts use REAP-Flex and for what purposes?

4. What recommendations do states and districts have for improving the operation of the SRSA 

and RLIS programs? 

Study Methods

Data collection activities for this study were the following:

1. Telephone interviews with state REAP coordinators in all 47 states that reported districts 

drawing down REAP funds in 2014–15. These interviews had a structured protocol designed to 

solicit information on state administrators’ role with the REAP eligibility and award process,

state goals and priorities for REAP, coordinators’ understanding of the REAP-Flex provision, the 

technical assistance states provided to REAP districts, and challenges and any recommendations 

for improving REAP.

2. An online survey of a nationally representative sample of district REAP coordinators. The survey 

included questions designed to collect information on district coordinators’ role in the eligibility 

process, how districts use REAP funds, SRSA district coordinators’ understanding and use of 

REAP-Flex, the technical assistance district REAP coordinators receive from the state and from 

the Department, and challenges and recommendations for improving REAP.

3. Telephone interviews with a random subsample of district REAP coordinators who completed 

the survey. The interviews enabled district coordinators to provide more detail on program 

administration and the opportunities and challenges REAP affords the local schools than was 

feasible via surveys. The interviews therefore expanded on information in the surveys, provided 

contextual details, and offered concrete examples of program implementation in ways that are 

difficult to collect in surveys.

The state interviews were with all 47 state REAP coordinators that reported districts drawing down REAP 

funds in 2014–15. While Vermont had five SRSA-eligible districts and Maryland had two RLIS-eligible 

districts in 2014–15, these districts did not draw down their REAP funds in FY 2014. Therefore, their data 

are not included in this study. Additionally, the focus of this report is the 50 states and District of 

Columbia; it does not include the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools or the U.S. territories. The 

state interviews were with all 47 state REAP coordinators that reported districts drawing down REAP 

funds in 2014–15. While Vermont had five SRSA-eligible districts and Maryland had two RLIS-eligible 

districts in 2014–15, these districts did not draw down their REAP funds in FY 2014. Therefore, their data 

are not included in this study. Hawaii and the District of Columbia also are not included, as they did not 

have any eligible districts.

The district survey was administered to a nationally representative random sample of 1,005 districts

that drew down REAP funds in FY 2014 (669 SRSA and 336 RLIS), stratified by the U.S. Census Bureau’s

geographic division and REAP program type (SRSA or RLIS), from the 4,274 districts allocated SRSA funds 

in 2014–15 and from the 2,010 districts eligible for RLIS funds in the same year. Overall, the survey 

response rate was 95 percent, with response rates of 80 percent or higher for all items. Of the 

950 district respondents, 316 were RLIS subgrantees and 634 were SRSA grantees — a response rate by 

program type of 94 percent and 95 percent, respectively. The district interviews were conducted with a 

sample of 18 SRSA grantees (10 that reported exercising REAP-Flex and eight that reported not 

exercising it) and six RLIS subgrantees. 
11

This report presents percentages that represent estimates of responses from all SRSA or RLIS districts 

nationally that drew down funds in 2014–15. When the responses for SRSA and RLIS districts were 

substantially different (10 percentage points or more), the researchers tested the statistical significance 

of these differences. Discussions in the report include only differences that were statistically significant 

at the .05 level. Corrections for multiple comparisons were not made. For a full discussion of survey 

analysis methods, including weight construction, see Appendix B.

Respondent Background

In addition to their REAP coordinator responsibilities, district survey respondents often held other roles. 

In SRSA districts, REAP coordinators were most often superintendents (64 percent), financial officers 

(27 percent), and/or school principals (17 percent). In RLIS districts, survey respondents were most 

frequently general administrators for all federal programs (40 percent), superintendents (27 percent), 

and/or administrators for individual federal programs (19 percent). On average, district REAP 

coordinators held more positions in SRSA districts (1.5 roles) than in RLIS districts (1.2 roles). 

State REAP coordinators reported an average of 12.6 years of experience in their state education 

agency. The overall range of experience, however, showed considerable variation within the sample, 

from less than one year to 40 years. District REAP coordinators reported an average of 6.6 years in their 

position, with a range from one year to more than 40 years. 

Study Limitation

The study design had one main limitation: The district interviews took place with a small sample that 

was not designed to be representative of REAP districts nationwide. Therefore, the report includes

examples from the interviews to illustrate survey responses when possible, but not all quantitative 

findings have accompanying qualitative data to support or provide detailed descriptions about the 

outcome. Furthermore, the examples provided in the interviews may not be nationally representative.

Report Structure

The remainder of the report consists of four chapters. Chapter 2 addresses the state role in the eligibility 

and award determination process for the SRSA and RLIS programs. Chapter 3 describes how districts 

used their SRSA or RLIS funds. Chapter 4 focuses on the REAP-Flex provision. Chapter 5 examines REAP 

grantees’ recommendations for improving the operation of the SRSA and RLIS programs.
12
13

Chapter 2. State Role in Eligibility and Award Process

for REAP

The Department is responsible for determining district eligibility and award amounts for REAP. It asks 

states to support the process for determining SRSA and RLIS eligibility. The Department and states offer 

technical assistance to districts to support their awareness and understanding of the eligibility and 

award process. This chapter describes the state role in the award process, technical assistance needs 

and services, and the questions and concerns states and districts raised regarding the process.

Determining Eligibility and Award Amounts for REAP

The Department uses statutory eligibility criteria to determine district eligibility for SRSA and RLIS. States 

support the eligibility determination process by providing district data that the Department needs to 

make eligibility determinations (ADA and optional state rural designations and county population 

density) and by verifying Department-provided eligibility data (district operational status, locale code, 

and poverty rate). The Department makes district awards for SRSA, and states make subgrants by 

competition or formula.

States supported the Department in determining REAP eligibility by providing district-level

data and reviewing the accuracy of Department-provided data.

The large majority of states with districts that drew down REAP funds (43 of 47) reported reviewing the 

Department-provided data for accuracy. For example, one state REAP coordinator reported she focused 

her review on data for districts that were newly eligible or were no longer eligible for REAP (SRSA and 

RLIS) given initial data, as well as for charter schools, which she reported open and close more 

frequently than non-charter schools, requiring additions or deletions to the districts included on the 

spreadsheet. Of the four coordinators that did not review the data, three state coordinators said that 

they assumed the data were correct and did not review them, and one state coordinator did not know 

whether the state reviewed the data because that responsibility belonged to other staff.

The Department also asks states to submit ADA and state rural designations for their districts. All 

47 states reported submitting this information. The majority of states (37 of 47) reported obtaining ADA

only from state databases; five states obtained this information directly from districts, and two from a 

combination of district and state sources. Three states submitted the data, but the respondents were 

not directly responsible for obtaining the data and did not know the source.

States may allow or require districts to verify these data before submitting the spreadsheets to the 

Department. Of the states that obtained ADA from their own databases, more than half (21 of 39 states) 

reported that they encouraged or required their REAP districts to verify the data before submission to 

the Department. In states where the state REAP coordinator encouraged or required districts to verify 

the data, about one-third (35 percent) of SRSA district coordinators also reported they were required 

and 13 percent of districts reported that they were encouraged or allowed to verify the data.14 About

half (44 percent) of SRSA district coordinators in these states did not know whether they were allowed 

 14 The RLIS survey did not include this question.
14

or required to verify these data before the state submitted them to the Department for REAP eligibility

determination (Exhibit 7). In interviews, two SRSA district coordinators described performing a thorough 

review. In one case, the superintendent reviewed the data elements with the help of a consultant, and 

another district coordinator described how multiple reviewers in and outside the district assessed the 

data. A third SRSA district coordinator reported that she reviewed the eligibility spreadsheets on the 

Department’s website each year.

Half the district coordinators interviewed were unclear on the eligibility determination process (nine of 

18 SRSA district coordinators and three of six RLIS district coordinators). For example, one SRSA 

coordinator was uncertain about why there was a two-year interruption in his district’s SRSA eligibility.

One RLIS coordinator thought she had submitted free or reduced-price meal eligibility rate as part of the 

process, although this rate is not used in determining eligibility for RLIS. The poverty rate used for RLIS 

eligibility is distinct from eligibility for free or reduced-price meals.

15

Exhibit 7. Percentage of SRSA districts that reported their state encouraged, required, or allowed them to 

verify ADA data before the state submitted data to the Department, 2014–15

Exhibit reads: Thirty-five percent of SRSA districts reported being required by the state to verify ADA for their 

district before the data were submitted to the Department.

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. 

Source: District Survey, Question 3 (N = 633).

 15 The federal free or reduced-price school meals program provides low-cost or free meals to students in U.S. public and 

nonprofit private schools whose families meet income guidelines (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2016).
15

The majority of states did not require a formal planning process from RLIS-eligible districts 

to receive their funds.

The Department allocates RLIS funds to states based on the ratio of the total ADA of RLIS-eligible 

districts in the state to the total ADA of all RLIS-eligible districts in the nation. In turn, states can choose 

to administer RLIS funds in several ways: They may require eligible districts to complete a state request, 

carry out a formal planning process, or do neither. 

More than half the states with RLIS-eligible districts in 2014–15 (22 of 43 states) required only a request 

from RLIS-eligible districts to receive their funds. Another 18 states required a formal planning process 

in addition to or instead of a request.

16 Three states required neither a request nor a formal planning 

process (see Exhibit 8).

Exhibit 8. Number of states with RLIS-eligible districts requiring them to take various steps to receive 

subgrants, 2014–15

Exhibit reads: Twenty-two states required RLIS-eligible districts only to submit a request to receive RLIS funds.

Note: Although interview responses indicate that respondents thought of a “request (only)” and a “formal planning process (with or without a 

request)” as distinct, these terms were not defined on the interview protocol and respondents did not clarify what they meant by each term. 

Source: State Interviews, Question 9 (N = 43 states).

 16 This planning process may be for RLIS funds alone or in combination with other state and federal funds. 
16

All 43 states with RLIS-eligible districts chose to make subgrants on the basis of a funding 

formula rather than on a competitive basis, and most of these states based the subgrant

amount entirely on ADA.

In addition to setting requirements for RLIS-eligible districts to receive funds, states can choose to 

distribute the awards among their eligible districts by formula or by competition. All 43 states with RLISeligible districts in 2014-15 reported awarding RLIS subgrants to districts by formula. Although most 

states did not comment on why they chose to use a formula rather than a competition, four states said 

that they chose a formula to reduce the burden on state and district offices. If the state uses a formula, 

it must allocate funds on the basis of ADA across all RLIS-eligible districts or in a way that better 

distributes the funds to families with incomes below the poverty line. 

Of the 43 states with RLIS-eligible districts in 2014–15, four states had only one eligible district, and thus 

awarded all RLIS funds to that one district. The remaining 39 states had more than one RLIS-eligible 

district and constructed a formula that distributed funds among districts. Nearly three–quarters of these 

states (28 of 39 states) used ADA as the sole determinant of the size of the award to each of their 

districts. Three states used ADA in combination with other data, particularly poverty rates, and two 

states used only poverty rates to decide the size of awards (Exhibit 9). Since at least 20 percent of 

students in all RLIS-eligible districts must come from families with incomes below the poverty line (see 

Chapter 1), states that used poverty rates in their formulas did so to further prioritize districts with even 

greater concentration of poverty than required to meet the eligibility threshold. Finally, six state REAP 

coordinators were not responsible for working with the formulas, which was the responsibility of others 

in the state; they did not know which data were used to determine RLIS subgrant amounts.
17

Exhibit 9. Number of states with more than one RLIS-eligible district whose subgrant formulas included 

various types of district data, 2014–15

Exhibit reads: Twenty-eight states determined the amount of districts’ RLIS subgrants using only average daily 

attendance. 

Source: State interviews, Question 9 (N = 39 states).

Once the Department completes the eligibility determination process, the SSRP office notifies each 

district of its eligibility and award amount. SRSA district coordinators most frequently reported learning 

about their eligibility (72 percent) and award amounts (72 percent) through direct communication from 

the Department. SRSA districts also checked the Department’s grant management system (known as G5) 

(49 percent of districts) or calculated the award amount using the funding formula (5 percent of 

districts). In addition, 34 of 44 of states with SRSA districts reported that they notified districts about 

their SRSA eligibility. Most RLIS district coordinators reported that their state notified them of their 

eligibility (87 percent) and award amounts (87 percent). 

Technical Assistance on Eligibility and Awards

The majority of REAP districts reported receiving assistance in finding out whether they were eligible for 

REAP (58 percent SRSA, 71 percent RLIS) or finding out the amount of their award (61 percent SRSA, 

74 percent RLIS). In keeping with how they learned about their eligibility and award amounts, SRSA

grantee districts were more likely to receive technical assistance from the Department (31 percent on 

eligibility and 37 percent on awards) than RLIS districts (2 percent on eligibility and 3 percent on 

awards). RLIS districts were more likely to receive assistance from their states (66 percent on eligibility 

and 70 percent on awards). Less than 5 percent of SRSA and RLIS districts received assistance from 
18

Regional Educational Laboratories (RELs), Regional Comprehensive Centers (RCCs), Content Centers, or 

other technical assistance providers.

17

In interviews, state REAP coordinators discussed the types of support they provide to SRSA districts on 

the eligibility process. One state coordinator described facilitating the relationship between the 

Department and the districts, sharing resources received from the Department, and explaining eligibility 

requirements and any changes in eligibility from year to year. Another state coordinator mentioned 

easing the transition for new SRSA districts or new district SRSA coordinators. The coordinator reported 

that if a district was newly eligible for SRSA, the state contacted it about filling out the application to the 

Department. The state also determined whether districts were actually using their SRSA funds; if they 

were not, the coordinator contacted the districts to find out why not. This REAP coordinator reported 

that because of staff turnover, the districts in the state were often unaware they were eligible for SRSA 

funding. In particular, if the person who had completed the original application was no longer in the 

district, the current district personnel might not be aware of the district’s eligibility for the grant.

REAP Coordinator Challenges in the Eligibility and Award Process 

The majority of SRSA (59 percent) and RLIS (54 percent) district coordinators reported that they 

experienced no challenges finding out their districts were eligible for REAP awards, and similar but 

smaller proportions of SRSA (53 percent) and RLIS (45 percent) districts reported no challenges 

obtaining information about their award amounts. Nonetheless, some REAP coordinators encountered 

challenges in this process. We note that some of the challenges concern aspects of the program that are 

outside the authority of the Department to modify, as they are set by statute and/or controlled by 

Congress.

Several REAP coordinators expressed concerns about two of the REAP statutory eligibility 

criteria: poverty and locale code requirements.

Several REAP coordinators expressed concerns about two of the statutory criteria used in determining 

eligibility for REAP awards. We note that these eligibility requirements are controlled by statute and 

therefore are outside the Department’s authority to change. First, two state coordinators mentioned 

concerns about the use of the U.S. Census Bureau’s poverty rates to determine eligibility for RLIS. One 

concern was that for districts close to the threshold of the poverty level eligibility requirement (at least 

20 percent of children are from families with incomes below the poverty line), small shifts in their 

poverty rates made them eligible for RLIS in some years and ineligible in others. Another concern was 

that poverty rates did not correspond with trends districts saw in a measure of poverty they often used

for other programs: eligibility for the free or reduced-price meals program. One coordinator noted that 

districts do not understand how they can see sizable increases in free or reduced-price meal eligibility 

rates and declining Census poverty rates. Because the income threshold for eligibility for the free or

reduced-price meals program is 185 percent of the income levels specified by the federal poverty 

guidelines, families may move out of poverty but their children may remain eligible for the free or

reduced-priced meals program; families may also experience income decreases to the point that their 

 17 RELs support schools and districts in using data and research in their practice (U.S. Department of Education, Institute of 

Education Sciences, Regional Educational Laboratory Program 2016). RCCs provide technical assistance to states to 

implement the ESEA and other related federal school improvement programs and help increase the capacity of states to 

assist their districts and schools (U.S. Department of Education, Office of School Support and Rural Programs, 

Comprehensive Centers Program 2016). 
19

children are eligible for the free or reduced-price meals program without dropping below the federal

poverty income guidelines.

Five state coordinators commented on the use of locale codes to determine eligibility.18 One state 

coordinator noted that districts found it confusing that REAP relied on locale codes that NCES no longer 

uses. Two other state coordinators thought the definition of rural using NCES locale codes excluded 

some rural districts because of their proximity to larger towns. Some states addressed this problem for 

SRSA districts by applying an alternative rural designation. For example, one state used a definition of 

rural that encompassed a population density of up to 100 persons per square mile.

While more than half of SRSA and RLIS districts knew the amount of their awards before 

they had finished their budget plans, the timing of notification about eligibility and award 

amounts was a challenge for some districts.

Although the majority of district REAP coordinators reported minimal challenges in the eligibility 

process, for SRSA 36 percent of district coordinators reported that their districts had finished their 

budget planning for the year before they knew whether they were eligible for an SRSA grant, and 

another eight percent had finished budget planning after they found out their eligibility but before they 

knew the amount of their award (Exhibit 10).

For RLIS 27 percent of district coordinators had finished their budget planning for the year before they 

knew whether they were eligible for an award, and another eight percent had finished planning after 

they knew their eligibility but before they knew the amount of their award (Exhibit 10).

 18 In 2006, NCES changed its locale codes from “metro-centric” to “urban-centric.” However, as required by statute, the 

metro-centric locales continued to be used for REAP eligibility through 2014–15. 
20

Exhibit 10. Percentage of SRSA and RLIS districts reporting that they had finished budget planning after they 

knew their eligibility or award amount for REAP, 2014–15

Exhibit reads: Fifty-six percent of SRSA coordinators finished their budget planning after they found out their SRSA 

eligibility and award amount.

Source: District Survey, Question 6 (n = 479 and 540 SRSA districts; 257 and 271 RLIS districts).

The timing of district notification was not the only challenge related to REAP awards; for districts that 

chose to estimate their award amounts, the predictability of the funds was also a challenge. If the 

congressional appropriation for REAP is not sufficient to make a full award to every eligible district, as 

determined by the allocation formula, by statute the Department proportionately reduces the 

allocations across all SRSA-eligible districts. As a result, an individual district may receive a smaller grant 

than in the prior year, even if its size and needs do not change. One district coordinator reported that 

his district keeps enough cash on hand to cover a shortfall should it not receive SRSA funds, another 

completed his budget planning as if his district would receive no SRSA funds, and a third SRSA 

coordinator reported that the district bases budgets each year on the allocation from the previous year, 

even though he knows the district may receive less money. 

Six state coordinators noted challenges answering SRSA districts’ questions about the 

federal eligibility and award process.

In interviews, two state respondents noted that direct grants from the Department to districts, such as 

SRSA grants, could be confusing to districts because they were accustomed to working with their state 

education agency and expected the state to be able to answer their questions about the program. For 
21

example, one state coordinator described the challenge of responding to districts’ questions about 

SRSA:

The most difficult thing for SRSA districts to understand is that there is not an application 

for their grant in the state system and that they must work directly with the federal G5 

system.... I don’t know anything about the G5 system because I’m not a financial person 

here at the department. I don’t use that system. So when they ask, “How do I access it;

what does it look like?” I don’t have answers for them. All I can say is, “Here is the help 

line and phone number.”

Another state coordinator commented, “It’s an odd relationship because the Department of Education is 

the one that notifies them, and they apply there...but we know the districts, and we do communicate 

with them.” Two state REAP coordinators also indicated that receiving no allocation was a problem for 

districts. By statute, SRSA districts may be eligible for the program but receive no funds because their 

allocations under certain ESEA formula programs are large enough to reduce their adjusted award 

amount to zero. These districts are able to exercise REAP-Flex but do not receive any funds. While the 

effects are a result of statutory language and thus beyond the scope of the Department’s authority, one 

coordinator of a SRSA district that did not receive funds noted that the result of applying this statutory 

provision felt punitive, especially if a district is not also eligible for RLIS. 
22
23

Chapter 3. District Use of REAP Funds

The ESEA specifies the allowable uses of SRSA and RLIS funds and also articulates a dual purpose 

for the funding: first, to provide additional funds to small districts that may lack the staff 

capacity to win competitive federal grants and, second, to supplement these districts’ formula 

grant allocations that may be too small to achieve their intended purpose.

District REAP coordinators often conducted a formal needs assessment to help them 

decide how to spend the REAP funds they received. 

Nearly half of SRSA districts (44 percent) and two-thirds of RLIS districts (66 percent) conducted a formal 

district needs assessment in 2014–15. During interviews, SRSA district coordinators explained that they 

use a district needs assessment combined with district and state goals to determine how to spend SRSA 

funds. The process is not unique or specific to SRSA but rather is part of a larger needs assessment and 

planning process. For example, one SRSA district coordinator said, “It’s hard to say how many hours we 

spent planning for REAP because REAP is a part of the larger [School Improvement Plan].” Likewise, one 

RLIS district coordinator described a planning process in which the district used the RLIS funds to fill in 

the gaps when they had finished applying all other funding sources. Another RLIS respondent described 

how the school administrative team developed a holistic professional development plan for the year for 

the district, allowed the school board and parents to comment, and then sought funding sources 

(including RLIS) that could cover the services they had identified. 

The inclusion of REAP within the overall improvement plan may explain why districts reported a large 

variety of types of personnel involved in the planning process. Superintendents (93 percent of SRSA

districts; 92 percent of RLIS districts), school principals (82 percent SRSA, 90 percent RLIS), and financial 

officers (77 percent SRSA; 77 percent RLIS) were commonly involved in deciding how to spend REAP

funds (Exhibit 11).
24

Exhibit 11. Percentage of various types of district personnel involved in deciding how to spend SRSA and RLIS

funds, 2014–15

Exhibit reads: Ninety-three percent of SRSA district coordinators reported their superintendent was involved in 

deciding how to spend their SRSA funds.

Note: Percentages sum to more than 100 because respondents could select all options that applied.

Source: District Survey, Question 8 (n = 580 to 628 SRSA; 279 to 310 RLIS districts).

Use of REAP Funds

REAP districts may use their funds for a range of activities, including improving academic achievement 

for disadvantaged students; enhancing teacher quality, recruitment, and retention; purchasing or 

improving educational technology; offering language instruction for limited English proficient and 

immigrant students; and creating safe and drug-free schools and communities.

REAP districts most frequently used their funds, alone or in combination with other funds, 

to improve or expand access to technology and to provide educator professional 

development.

More than two-thirds of district coordinators reported that they used their REAP funds to improve or 

expand access to technology (71 percent of SRSA districts and 71 percent of RLIS districts), and about 

half used REAP funds to provide professional development for teachers or administrators (45 percent

SRSA and 58 percent RLIS) (Exhibit 12).
25

During interviews, district coordinators described how they used REAP funding. For example, one SRSA 

district coordinator in an isolated rural district without access to the state fiber optics or high-speed

Internet reported using the funds to provide access to the Internet. Nine years ago, in 2005–06, the 

district used its SRSA grant to connect to the Internet for the first time via satellite; in 2014–15, it 

combined the SRSA funds with local taxes to fund an Internet hot spot for the district schools. Another 

SRSA district coordinator reported that the district chose to use its SRSA funds to support technology 

because the infrastructure it had was “antiquated” and SRSA offered an opportunity to update it. The 

district has continued to use SRSA in support of an ongoing technology plan. An RLIS district used its 

funds to purchase electronic interactive whiteboards and tablets and to train teachers on this 

technology. 

A coordinator in one SRSA district that used its funds for professional development reported bringing in 

a speaker and sending individual teachers to professional development outside the district. Although the 

SRSA funds were a small part of the overall professional development budget, they enabled this district 

to send additional teachers and provide additional topics that it would otherwise not have been able to 

afford. This district reported that it used SRSA funds for teacher professional development because the 

district’s teachers identified the area as needing improvement. 

Two RLIS district coordinators reported in interviews that their districts chose to spend RLIS funds on 

professional development because they did not have the budget to hire internal staff to provide 

specialized courses, and in their isolated locations, they had to send teachers long distances to receive 

training. One district coordinator described sending teachers to professional development on addressing 

mental health and behavioral issues among students. These teachers shared what they learned with 

their colleagues, and the district planned to use RLIS funds to send more teachers to similar trainings in 

coming years. A third RLIS district coordinator described purchasing a literacy program to improve 

reading mastery, along with a three-day intensive professional development session and quarterly visits 

from the developer of the program to provide one-on-one support to teachers in using the program. 
26

Exhibit 12. Percentage of SRSA and RLIS districts that reported various uses for their REAP funds, 2014–15

Exhibit reads: Seventy-one percent of SRSA district coordinators reported using SRSA funds to pay for improving or 

expanding access to technology.

Note: Percentages sum to more than 100 because respondents could select all options that applied.

Source: District Survey, Question 10 (n = 580 to 628 SRSA; 290 to 304 RLIS districts).

The majority of REAP districts reported coordinating the use of REAP funds with other 

federal funds. 

The average district SRSA grant amount was $19,860 in 2014–15, an amount that may not be sufficient 

to fund activities or services in isolation. Therefore, 65 percent of the SRSA coordinators reported that 

their district used SRSA funds in combination with other funds: 51 percent supplemented activities 

funded with other Department funds, particularly Title I, Title II, and 21st Century Community Learning 

Centers funds (Title IV, part B); 33 percent E-Rate funds,

19 and smaller proportions U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (6 percent), state (3 percent), or local funds (1 percent). For example, one SRSA district 

coordinator reported that the district combined SRSA funds with other ESEA funding to provide 

remediation for struggling students.

19 Also known as the Schools and Libraries Program, E-Rate provides funds for schools to purchase discounted Internet and 

telecommunications services (Federal Communications Commission 2016).
27

About two-thirds of RLIS districts (66 percent) also used their funds in combination with other funds. 

More than half of RLIS district coordinators used their RLIS funds in combination with other funds from 

the Department, including other ESEA formula funds, Investing in Innovation funds,

20 and Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act funds (58 percent). A lower proportion of RLIS districts (23 percent) than 

SRSA districts (33 percent) reported coordinating their funds with E-Rate. Five percent or less of RLIS 

districts combined their funds with Department of Agriculture (5 percent), local (2 percent), or state (1 

percent) funds. 

One district coordinator described using their RLIS funds in combination with Title II, Part A; Title I; and 

21st Century Community Learning Centers funds to pay for a technology coordinator in the district. The 

technology coordinator visits classrooms and models how to use the technology the district has

available. Another described combining RLIS funds with other funds to buy electronic interactive 

whiteboards and the accompanying projectors. Additionally, an RLIS district coordinator reported that 

the district used RLIS funds to pay for professional development and other funds to pay substitute 

teachers to cover the teachers’ classrooms while they attended the professional development. 

More than half of REAP district coordinators reported targeting the use of REAP funds to 

improve the educational outcomes of particular subgroups of students.

The districts that targeted their REAP funds to improve the educational outcomes of particular groups of 

students (54 percent of SRSA districts and 66 percent of RLIS districts) most frequently targeted lowperforming students (87 percent SRSA; 86 percent RLIS) or low-income students (70 percent SRSA; 

78 percent RLIS) (Exhibit 13). For example, one RLIS district coordinator used RLIS funds to help lowperforming students in need of preparation to pass the state assessment. The coordinator reported 

using funds to pay for a technology intervention that enabled these students to practice taking state 

assessments. The proportions of SRSA districts and RLIS districts targeting their funds to particular 

groups of students were similar for all groups except students with disabilities. A lower proportion of 

RLIS districts (28 percent) than SRSA districts (40 percent) used their funds to support students with 

disabilities.

 20 Investing in Innovation (i3) funds are competitive grants given to districts and nonprofit organizations to fund and study 

programs that have been shown to improve student outcomes (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and 

Improvement 2016) 
28

Exhibit 13. Percentage of SRSA and RLIS districts that reported targeting REAP funds to particular student 

groups, 2014–15

Exhibit reads: Of SRSA district coordinators who reported targeting their SRSA funds to particular student groups, 

87 percent targeted them to low-performing students.

Note: Percentages sum to more than 100 because respondents could select all options that applied. 

Source: District Survey, Question 14 (n = 340 SRSA; 204 RLIS districts that targeted funds to particular student groups). 
29

The large majority of district coordinators reported that their funds enabled their district to 

better meet its goals.

Approximately 90 percent of district coordinators reported that their REAP funds enabled their district 

to better meet its goals, alone or in combination with other funds (89 percent of SRSA coordinators and 

92 percent of SRSA coordinators). In one SRSA district that used SRSA funds for professional 

development, the coordinator said, 

Without REAP funding, there is a lot of professional development that we would not be 

able to attend just because of the cost of it.... Our teachers are very thankful for that. 

They have been given opportunities that without REAP they would not have received.

Another SRSA district whose goal for using REAP funds was to improve academic achievement hired a 

part-time teacher for a remediation program in mathematics and reading, serving about 30 students in 

grades 2 through 5. A district with a goal of improving access to technology for its low-income students 

used SRSA funds to improve the technology in the school library, which is available to both students and 

their families. That district also had laptops students could take home (funded through another source), 

and it used SRSA to fund outreach to parents about this initiative. One RLIS district that used its RLIS 

funds to send elementary school teachers to professional development on mental health issues among 

students did so because a district- and state-level goal was to improve these services for students. 

Technical Assistance on Using REAP Funds

The majority of district REAP coordinators received assistance on using their funds from at least one

source (59 percent of SRSA districts and 77 percent of RLIS districts). 

When in need of technical assistance, SRSA coordinators reported relying on their states in 

addition to the Department, and RLIS coordinators reported relying on their states.

SRSA district coordinators who did receive technical assistance most often received it from the

Department, followed by their states, whereas RLIS district coordinators most often received assistance 

from their states (Exhibit 14). Less than 10 percent of SRSA and RLIS district coordinators received 

technical assistance on any of these topics from RELs, RCCs, or other technical assistance providers. 
30

Exhibit 14. The source of the assistance for SRSA and RLIS districts receiving technical assistance, 2014–15

Exhibit reads: Twenty-five percent of SRSA district coordinators received technical assistance on understanding 

allowable uses of funds from the U.S. Department of Education.

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 because respondents could select all options that applied.

Source: District Survey, Questions 19 and 29 (n = 624 to 629 SRSA; 314 to 316 RLIS districts).

The majority of REAP grantees found the assistance they received to be moderately or greatly helpful. 

Depending on the topic, between 75 percent and 79 percent of SRSA districts and between 81 percent

and 85 percent of RLIS districts found the assistance from their states to be moderately or greatly 

helpful. Likewise, between 73 percent and 82 percent of SRSA districts that received assistance from the 

Department reported that the assistance was moderately or greatly helpful.21

Challenges in Using REAP Funds

The district survey and interviews asked REAP coordinators about the challenges they faced in using 

REAP funds, and the state interviews asked about their challenges in supporting districts in using their 

funds. 

 21 The number of RLIS coordinators who reported receiving assistance from the Department was too low to report the 

helpfulness of the assistance.
31

Approximately two-thirds of REAP district coordinators reported minimal to no challenge in 

using their REAP funds. 

When REAP district coordinators did provide feedback about the challenges they experienced, they most 

frequently identified the following as posing moderate or great challenges: understanding the allowable 

uses of funds (24 percent SRSA; 23 percent RLIS), understanding reporting requirements (23 percent 

SRSA; 13 percent RLIS), and understanding accounting requirements (21 percent SRSA; 10 percent RLIS) 

(Exhibit 15). For example, in interviews one SRSA coordinator reported that she was unclear whether 

she was allowed to use SRSA funds to purchase cell phones for administrators. 

In interviews, three RLIS district coordinators also identified the need for more support on the allowable 

uses of their funds, especially for new coordinators. One coordinator noted that because the allowable 

uses of RLIS funds are broad, there can be uncertainty as to the specific activities for which the funding 

can be applied. 

Exhibit 15. Percentage of REAP districts that reported various levels of challenge in using REAP funds, 2014–15 

Exhibit reads: Six percent of SRSA district coordinators found understanding the allowable uses of funds to be 

challenging to a great extent.

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

Source: District Survey, Questions 19 and 29 (n = 625 to 629 SRSA; 310 to 312 RLIS).

As shown in Exhibit 14, states provided most of the technical assistance to RLIS districts on using and 

administering their funds. In interviews, however, state coordinators indicated they encountered 

challenges in providing this technical assistance. Four states mentioned limited district staff as a 

challenge. They noted that having staff from rural districts attend state trainings can be a problem 
32

because the districts do not have the staff to spare. In addition, five state coordinators noted limited 

capacity at the state level to provide districts with this technical assistance.

States also identified challenges in assisting SRSA districts because the state staff are not the program 

administrators. These states reported that districts turned to them for information on SRSA, but the 

state coordinators did not feel prepared to support them adequately. For example, an administrator in 

one state that provided technical assistance to SRSA districts noted that “getting them [SRSA districts] to 

understand that the SRSA funding is not managed at the state level [is a challenge]. It’s tough for them 

to get because they look to us for the answers.” 
33

Chapter 4. REAP-Flex

The REAP Alternative Uses of Funds Authority, or REAP-Flex, gives SRSA-eligible districts greater 

flexibility in using the formula grant funds that they receive under certain state-administered federal

programs. The provision does not provide additional funds but rather allows districts to use funds from 

four ESEA programs (referred to in the statute as “applicable funding”) — Improving Teacher Quality 

State Grants, Educational Technology State Grants, Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities, and 

State Grants for Innovative Programs — for activities authorized under certain other ESEA formula 

programs, the same programs for which SRSA districts may spend their SRSA funds.

22 Of the four sources 

of applicable funding, only one (Improving Teacher Quality State Grants) was funded at the time of data 

collection. The Department does not require districts to report data on REAP-Flex directly to the federal

government. However, it does require states to establish their own methods to collect information on 

local uses of funds under REAP-Flex.

This chapter describes state and district coordinators’ understanding of the REAP-Flex provision, district 

use of REAP-Flex, and reasons why some districts do not use REAP-Flex.

State and District Coordinators’ Awareness and Understanding of the 

REAP-Flex Provision 

SRSA districts reported hearing about REAP-Flex from a variety of sources. Coordinators also reported 

that the usefulness of information they received from these sources varied in helping them determine 

whether to use REAP-Flex.

In addition to states and the Department, SRSA district coordinators reported hearing about 

REAP-Flex from their colleagues, professional organizations, and other sources.

Of the 73 percent of SRSA district coordinators who reported awareness of REAP-Flex, the sources of 

information about it they cited most frequently were the state (59 percent), the Department 

(49 percent reporting a Department website or publication, 16 percent direct communication), and 

colleagues (40 percent) (Exhibit 16). About two-fifths (43 percent) of those who heard about REAP-Flex

from their state also learned of it from a Department website or publication or from direct 

communication with Department staff. 

 22 These programs are all the ESEA programs for which SRSA grantees may spend their SRSA funds: Improving the Academic 

Achievement of the Disadvantaged (Title I, Part A), Improving Teacher Quality State Grants (Title II, Part A), Educational 

Technology State Grants (Title II, Part D), Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students (Title 

III), Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities (Title IV, Part A), 21st Century Community Learning Centers (Title IV, Part 

B), and State Grants for Innovative Programs (Title V, Part A).
34

Exhibit 16. Percentage of SRSA district coordinators who reported hearing about REAP-Flex from various 

sources, 2014–15

Exhibit reads: Fifty-nine percent of SRSA coordinators heard about REAP-Flex through information or technical 

assistance provided by their state.

Note: Percentages sum to more than 100 because respondents could select all options that applied. 

Source: District Survey, Question 21 (n = 369 to 447).

The survey asked district coordinators who reported receiving information on REAP-Flex about the 

extent to which they found the information useful. Nearly all district coordinators who received 

information from their state reported that it was somewhat useful (48 percent) or very useful 

(45 percent) to them in deciding whether to exercise the REAP-Flex option (Exhibit 17). Similarly, 

84 percent of coordinators who received information via the Department’s website or publications 

found the information somewhat or very useful.
35

Exhibit 17. Usefulness of information sources to coordinators in deciding whether to use REAP-Flex, 2014–15

Exhibit reads: Forty-five percent of SRSA district coordinators who received information from their state found it 

very useful in their decision about whether to use REAP-Flex in 2014–15.

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

Source: District Survey, Question 24 (n = 59 to 325).

Under the ESEA, RLIS districts are not eligible for the REAP-Flex option. However, the study sought to 

gauge interest in a hypothetical option for REAP-Flex among RLIS district coordinators. Of those 

surveyed, 92 percent of RLIS district coordinators reported that they would, to a moderate extent

(32 percent) or a great extent (60 percent), value an option like REAP-Flex, particularly the authority to 

use all or part of specific ESEA program funds to support other activities under an array of other ESEA

programs.

The majority of REAP coordinators reported being aware of REAP-Flex, but in interviews 

several coordinators provided examples that were inconsistent with the provision.

State REAP coordinators in 33 of the 44 states with SRSA districts reported being at least somewhat 

familiar with the REAP-Flex option. Of the 11 state coordinators who were unfamiliar with REAP-Flex, 10

reported that few districts in their state used REAP-Flex. At the district level, 73 percent of SRSA

coordinators reported that they had been aware of REAP-Flex before reading the description of the 

provision provided in the survey. Of those who were aware of REAP-Flex, 76 percent reported that they 

understood the provision to a moderate extent (50 percent) or to a great extent (26 percent). 

However, six of 12 district coordinators interviewed who expressed familiarity with REAP-Flex in 

interviews provided comments that were inconsistent with the provision. For example, one described 

REAP-Flex as an option that allowed the districts to combine REAP funds with Title I and II and state and 

local funding. Another said his district did not use the REAP-Flex option because if the REAP funding 
36

were combined with other ESEA funding, it would all have to go to salaries and the district needed

technology more. Yet exercising REAP-Flex does not involve or affect districts’ use of any other funds

(SRSA, state, or local), only the ability to “flex” or use their Title II, Part A funds to support any activities 

under the allowable uses of SRSA funds.

Use of REAP-Flex

This section of the report references 2005–06 data from a previous study of REAP-Flex along with the 

2014–15 data from the current survey to examine changes over time (U.S. Department of Education 

et al. 2007).

Nearly half (46 percent) of SRSA-eligible districts reported using REAP-Flex in the 2014–15 school year 

(Exhibit 18). In a survey of SRSA-eligible districts conducted in 2005–06, a similar proportion (51 percent)

of respondents reported using REAP-Flex (U.S. Department of Education et al. 2007). 

Exhibit 18. Percentage of SRSA district coordinators reporting their district used REAP-Flex in 2014–15

Exhibit reads: Forty-six percent of SRSA district coordinators reported using REAP-Flex in the 2014–15 school year.

Source: District Survey, Question 23 (n = 633).
37

SRSA districts most commonly used REAP-Flex to maintain a stable level of funding for 

ongoing activities.

Coordinators in districts that used REAP-Flex most frequently reported that they used the option to 

maintain a stable level of funding for ongoing activities (82 percent) (Exhibit 19). This finding is similar to 

the results from the 2005–06 survey, in which 79 percent of districts reported using REAP-Flex to 

maintain a stable level of funding for ongoing activities (U.S. Department of Education et al. 2007). 

Compared with reports in 2005–06, SRSA districts that exercised REAP-Flex in 2014–15 were less likely 

to report using it to target funds to particular student groups or outcomes. In 2014–15, 52 percent of 

districts reported targeting particular subgroups or outcomes, compared with 81 percent in 2005–06, 

(U.S. Department of Education et al. 2007).

In 2014–15, SRSA districts that exercised REAP-Flex were also less likely than in 2005–06 to report using 

the provision to increase the amount of federal funds available for high-priority or new activities. Fiftyone percent of the SRSA district coordinators reported using funds for high-priority activities, and 

43 percent reported they initiated new activities that would not have been possible without the option 

(Exhibit 19), compared with 78 percent for high-priority activities and 78 percent for new activities in 

2005–06 (U.S. Department of Education et al. 2007).
38

Exhibit 19. SRSA district coordinators’ reports of the functional uses of REAP-Flex, 2014–15

Exhibit reads: Of SRSA districts that exercised REAP-Flex, 82 percent used it to maintain a stable level of funding

for ongoing activities in the 2014–15 school year.

Source: District Survey, Question 26 (n = 282 to 285).

SRSA coordinators in districts that exercised REAP-Flex commonly used their Improving Teacher Quality 

State Grant funds for authorized activities under Improving the Achievement of Disadvantaged Children 

(67 percent) and Educational Technology State Grants (38 percent) (Exhibit 20). In interviews, one 

coordinator described how the district exercises REAP-Flex to use Title II, Part A funds for

paraprofessionals that deliver interventions to low-performing students under Title I, Part A.
39

Exhibit 20. The ESEA programs for which REAP-Flex districts used their Title II, Part A funds, 

2014–15

Exhibit reads: Of SRSA districts that used REAP-Flex, 67 percent used it to fund activities for Improving the 

Achievement of Disadvantaged Children (Title I, Part A) in the 2014–15 school year. 

Source: District Survey, Question 27 (n = 280 to 286).

Challenges in Using REAP-Flex

District SRSA coordinators reported a variety of reasons for not using REAP-Flex and challenges in using 

the provision.

SRSA districts that did not use REAP-Flex reported lack of awareness and lack of 

information about the provision as reasons for not using the option.

Of the SRSA district coordinators (35 percent) who reported their district did not use REAP-Flex, 

approximately a third (34 percent of nonusers) reported that the amount of funds in applicable 

categories (i.e., Title II, Part A) was too small to make exercising REAP-Flex worthwhile. Lack of 

knowledge was another common reason for not using REAP-Flex, specifically lack of information about 

REAP-Flex (33 percent) and lack of awareness of the REAP-Flex option (32 percent).

23 A smaller 

 23 These proportions are not mutually exclusive. A proportion of those who reported not having enough information also 

reported not knowing the option existed.
40

percentage (15 percent) of SRSA coordinators in districts that did not use REAP-Flex cited burdensome 

accounting requirements as a reason (Exhibit 21). 

Interviewees discussed additional reasons for not using REAP-Flex. For example, a district coordinator 

believed that another ESEA provision for which her district was eligible (the name of which she did not 

remember) allowed Title II funds to be used for Title I activities, and thus the district did not need to use 

REAP-Flex. She had used REAP-Flex in prior years, however, and found it “a great help to have that 

flexibility.” Another coordinator, who had been with the district for four years, indicated that no one 

had ever discussed the possibility of using REAP-Flex; she thought it was likely that the district had never 

deliberately decided not to use it but simply did not exercise this option. Another coordinator believed 

that his district did not receive funds under any of the applicable programs and so could not exercise 

REAP-Flex. 

Exhibit 21. Factors contributing to SRSA districts’ decisions not to use REAP-Flex, 2014–15

Exhibit reads: Thirty-four percent of SRSA district coordinators whose districts did not use REAP-Flex in the 2014–

15 school year reported that they chose not to because the amount of funds in applicable categories would have 

been too small to effectively carry out desired activities even after exercising the REAP-Flex option. 

Note: Percentages sum to more than 100 because respondents could select all options that applied. “Transferability” is separate from REAPFlex; it allows states and districts to transfer a portion of the funds they receive under certain federal programs to other programs. All 

transferred funds are subject to the requirements of the program to which they are transferred.

Source: District Survey, Question 25 (n = 219 to 221).
41

The majority (59 percent) of SRSA district coordinators whose districts did not use REAP-Flex reported 

that their interest would be somewhat or much higher with more information about how to use it. 

Approximately half (48 percent) reported that their interest would be somewhat or much higher if 

accounting requirements were relaxed or more assistance were offered to maintain necessary records 

(Exhibit 22). 

Exhibit 22. SRSA district coordinators’ reports of how changes to REAP-Flex would affect their interest in using 

the option, 2014–15

Exhibit reads: Among SRSA coordinators in districts that did not use REAP-Flex, 17 percent reported that their level 

of interest in using it next year would be much higher if they had more information on how to use the option.

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

Source: District Survey, Question 28 (n = 223). 
42
43

Chapter 5. Grantee Recommendations for Improving 

REAP 

The majority of SRSA and RLIS district coordinators reported few challenges in using or administering 

their funds and found the technical assistance they received both from their states and from the 

Department to be helpful. However, in interviews state and district coordinators identified some 

recommendations for improving REAP. 

The majority of district and state REAP coordinators were highly satisfied with REAP as a 

whole.

Overall, 39 of 47 state REAP coordinators were somewhat or very satisfied with REAP, and 40 of 47 were 

somewhat or very satisfied with the Department’s administration of it. Nearly all SRSA district 

coordinators (93 percent) and RLIS district coordinators (96 percent) were highly or moderately satisfied 

with REAP. One SRSA coordinator reported that the district appreciated that the SRSA funds gave the 

district the flexibility needed to help its highest need students and made administering the funds less 

challenging than other funding sources. 

Although REAP coordinators were satisfied with the program overall, they provided recommendations in 

three categories: (1) improved timelines for eligibility and award determination, (2) more information 

on allowable uses of funds and REAP-Flex, and (3) changes to data used in determining eligibility. 

REAP coordinators recommended revising the eligibility determination and award timeline 

so that it aligns more closely with other ESEA funding and their own budget cycles. 

In interviews with state coordinators, eight recommended improvements to REAP that pertained to the 

timeline for eligibility determination. As discussed in Chapter 2, some district coordinators struggled 

with including REAP funds in their budget planning when they did not know whether they would be 

eligible for the coming year or what the amount of the grant would be if they did receive one. Three 

state coordinators recommended that the Department send out the eligibility spreadsheets earlier so 

districts would know whether they were eligible for an SRSA or RLIS grant. Another coordinator 

suggested that the timeline start earlier so districts could apply for all federal grants at the same time. 

Four state coordinators recommended that the Department make the REAP awards and allocation 

amounts available earlier so districts could plan their budgets. In particular, one state coordinator would 

like the REAP awards to be made at the same time as other grants are made. 

REAP coordinators expressed a need for more information on REAP, particularly on 

allowable uses of funds and REAP-Flex. 

A minority of REAP districts reported needing technical assistance in administering their REAP funds to a 

moderate or great extent (14 percent of SRSA districts and 6 percent of RLIS districts). As discussed in 

Chapters 2, 3, and 4, some REAP coordinators struggled with understanding the eligibility process, 

allowable uses of REAP funds, and the REAP-Flex provision. Eight state coordinators recommended 

providing guidance on the best uses of the funds. For example, one state respondent suggested the 

Department provide examples of ways districts have used the funding that were innovative or had a 

positive effect on students. Four district coordinators echoed that sentiment. One SRSA district would 
44

like to see examples of how to use SRSA funds to support professional development strategies in 

particular, and another would like examples of how to use SRSA funds for teacher recruitment and 

retention. Similar to an SRSA coordinator, one RLIS district coordinator believed that having examples of 

how other districts use RLIS funds would be helpful. Finally, one SRSA district coordinator suggested 

additional webinars from the Department or the state to address how the funding amounts are 

calculated.

Additionally, both SRSA grantees and RLIS subgrantees recommended broadening the allowable uses for 

REAP funds, which is beyond the scope of the Department’s authority to change. However, they did not 

provide examples of the additional allowable uses they would like to see. Relatedly, REAP-Flex is 

specifically designed to allow SRSA-eligible districts more flexibility in how they use other funds. By 

statute, however, RLIS districts are not eligible to exercise REAP-Flex, and 92 percent of RLIS district 

coordinators reported that they would value the option to a moderate extent (32 percent) or to a great 

extent (60 percent).

State coordinators had a number of suggestions to improve information flow about REAP. To facilitate 

communication with districts, one state coordinator recommended that the Department establish an 

email list with district REAP grantees and subgrantees and send regular emails with information about 

the program. Another state coordinator suggested that the Department provide states with updates on 

REAP that they can pass along to districts. Another recommended that the Department offer states an 

online or paper pamphlet presenting all the topics related to REAP in a user-friendly manner to share 

with districts, and another recommended that the Department modify the presentation materials from 

its annual grant award kickoff webinar so states can share them with their districts. The same state 

coordinator also suggested that the Department establish an email list for the state REAP coordinators 

so that they could ask questions of more experienced peers in other states.

24 Two state coordinators 

mentioned the need for updated program guidance or clarification on whether or not the 2003 guidance 

was still current. 

Districts and states recommended revising the rural locale codes and poverty criteria used 

in determining REAP eligibility.

Some districts and states made recommendations to requirements that are set by statute and therefore 

beyond the authority of the Department to alter. For example, to minimize the fluctuations in eligibility 

from year to year due to changes in districts’ poverty rates, one state coordinator suggested using a 

three-year average for poverty rates, and another suggested a one-year grace period before dropping a 

district from eligibility. As discussed in Chapter 2, seven state coordinators expressed concern about 

either the poverty rate criteria (two states) or rural locale code criteria (five states) used to determine 

REAP eligibility. Another state coordinator recommended updating the eligibility requirements to use 

the NCES urban-centric locale codes released in 2006. Because Congress established the REAP eligibility 

criteria in 2001, these criteria rely on earlier locale codes.

 24 The REAP office does publish state coordinator information on its website: http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/freedom/local/ 

reapstatecontacts.html.
45

References

Consortium for School Networking (CoSN). 2016. Annual Infrastructure Survey. Washington, DC: Author. 

Available at http://cosn.org/sites/default/files/CoSN_4th_Annual_Survey_Oct16_PROOF5.pdf.

Federal Communications Commission. 2016. FAQs on E-Rate Program for Schools and Libraries.

Washington, DC: Author. Available at https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/universal-serviceprogram-schools-and-libraries-e-rate.

Glander, M. 2015. Selected Statistics from the Public Elementary and Secondary Education Universe: 

School Year 2013–14 (NCES 2015-151). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Institute 

for Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Available at

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015151.pdf

Horrigan, John B. 2014. Schools and Broadband Speeds: An Analysis of Gaps in Access to High-Speed 

Internet for African American, Latino, Low-Income, and Rural Students. Washington, DC: Alliance for 

Excellent Education, Lead Commission. Available at https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60000979777.pdf.

Porowski, Allan, and Caitlin Howley. 2013. Dropout Prevention: Challenges and Opportunities in Rural 

Settings. Washington, DC: ICF International. Available at 

https://www.academia.edu/4561266/Dropout_Prevention_Challenges_and_Opportunities_in_Rural

_Settings.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2015. Poverty Thresholds. Available at http://www.census.gov/data/tables/timeseries/demo/income-poverty/historical-poverty-thresholds.html.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2016. National School Lunch Program. Available at 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp/national-school-lunch-program-nslp.

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, Regional Educational Laboratory 

Program. 2016. The Regional Educational Laboratories. Available at 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edLabs/regions/.

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. 

2016. Identification of Rural Locales. Available at https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/rural_locales.asp.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement. 2016. Investing in Innovation 

Fund (i3). Available at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html?exp=0.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and 

Program Studies Service. 2007. Evaluation of Flexibility under No Child Left Behind: Volume III—

The Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP-Flex). Washington, DC: Author. Available at 

http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/flexibility/volIII-reap.pdf.
46

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and 

Program Studies Service. 2010. Evaluation of the Implementation of the Rural and Low-Income 

School (RLIS) Program: Final Report. Washington, DC: Author. Available at 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#rural.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of School Support and Rural Programs, Comprehensive Centers 

Program. 2016. Comprehensive Centers Program. Available at 

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/newccp/index.html.

U. S. Department of Education, Office of School Support and Rural Programs, Rural Low-Income School 

Program, 2016. RLISP Eligibility Spreadsheets for Fiscal Year 2014/School Year 2014-2015. Available 

at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/reaprlisp/eligible14/index.html.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of School Support and Rural Programs, Small Rural School 

Achievement Program, 2016. Small, Rural School Achievement Program, Eligibility Spreadsheets for 

FY2014. Available at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/reapsrsa/eligible14/index.html
47

APPENDIX A: Full Text of the ESEA, as Amended by 

the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Title VI, Part B – 

Rural Education Initiative

SEC. 6201. SHORT TITLE.

This part may be cited as the 'Rural Education Achievement Program'.

SEC. 6202. PURPOSE.

It is the purpose of this part to address the unique needs of rural school districts that frequently – 

(1) lack the personnel and resources needed to compete effectively for Federal 

competitive grants; and

(2) receive formula grant allocations in amounts too small to be effective in meeting 

their intended purposes.

Subpart 1 — Small, Rural School Achievement Program

SEC. 6211. USE OF APPLICABLE FUNDING.

(a) ALTERNATIVE USES- 

(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an eligible local 

educational agency may use the applicable funding that the agency is eligible to receive 

from the State educational agency for a fiscal year to carry out local activities authorized 

under any of the following provisions:

(A) Part A of title I.

(B) Part A or D of title II.

(C) Title III.

(D) Part A or B of title IV.

(E) Part A of title V.

(2) NOTIFICATION- An eligible local educational agency shall notify the State educational 

agency of the local educational agency's intention to use the applicable funding in 

accordance with paragraph (1), by a date that is established by the State educational 

agency for the notification.

(b) ELIGIBILITY- 

(1) IN GENERAL- A local educational agency shall be eligible to use the applicable 

funding in accordance with subsection (a) if — 

(A)(i)(I) the total number of students in average daily attendance at all of the 

schools served by the local educational agency is fewer than 600; or
48

(II) each county in which a school served by the local educational agency is 

located has a total population density of fewer than 10 persons per square mile; 

and

(ii) all of the schools served by the local educational agency are designated with 

a school locale code of 7 or 8, as determined by the Secretary; or

(B) the agency meets the criteria established in subparagraph (A)(i) and the 

Secretary, in accordance with paragraph (2), grants the local educational 

agency's request to waive the criteria described in subparagraph (A)(ii).

(2) CERTIFICATION- The Secretary shall determine whether to waive the criteria 

described in paragraph (1)(A)(ii) based on a demonstration by the local educational 

agency, and concurrence by the State educational agency, that the local educational 

agency is located in an area defined as rural by a governmental agency of the State.

(c) APPLICABLE FUNDING DEFINED- In this section, the term ‘applicable funding' means funds 

provided under any of the following provisions:

(1) Subpart 2 and section 2412(a)(2)(A) of title II.

(2) Section 4114.

(3) Part A of title V.

(d) DISBURSEMENT- Each State educational agency that receives applicable funding for a fiscal 

year shall disburse the applicable funding to local educational agencies for alternative uses 

under this section for the fiscal year at the same time as the State educational agency disburses 

the applicable funding to local educational agencies that do not intend to use the applicable 

funding for such alternative uses for the fiscal year.

(e) APPLICABLE RULES- Applicable funding under this section shall be available to carry out local 

activities authorized under subsection (a).

SEC. 6212. GRANT PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

(a) IN GENERAL- The Secretary is authorized to award grants to eligible local educational 

agencies to enable the local educational agencies to carry out activities authorized under any of 

the following provisions:

(1) Part A of title I.

(2) Part A or D of title II.

(3) Title III.

(4) Part A or B of title IV.

(5) Part A of title V.

(b) ALLOCATION-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (3), the Secretary shall award a grant 

under subsection (a) to a local educational agency eligible under section 6211(b) for a 

fiscal year in an amount equal to the initial amount determined under paragraph (2) for 

the fiscal year minus the total amount received by the agency under the provisions of 

law described in section 6211(c) for the preceding fiscal year.
49

(2) DETERMINATION OF INITIAL AMOUNT- The initial amount referred to in paragraph 

(1) is equal to $100 multiplied by the total number of students in excess of 50 students, 

in average daily attendance at the schools served by the local educational agency, plus 

$20,000, except that the initial amount may not exceed $60,000.

(3) RATABLE ADJUSTMENT-

(A) IN GENERAL- If the amount made available to carry out this section for any 

fiscal year is not sufficient to pay in full the amounts that local educational 

agencies are eligible to receive under paragraph (1) for such year, the Secretary 

shall ratably reduce such amounts for such year.

(B) ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS- If additional funds become available for making 

payments under paragraph (1) for such fiscal year, payments that were reduced 

under subparagraph (A) shall be increased on the same basis as such payments 

were reduced.

(c) DISBURSEMENT- The Secretary shall disburse the funds awarded to a local educational 

agency under this section for a fiscal year not later than July 1 of that fiscal year.

(d) SPECIAL ELIGIBILITY RULE- A local educational agency that is eligible to receive a grant under 

this subpart for a fiscal year is not eligible to receive funds for such fiscal year under subpart 2.

SEC. 6213. ACCOUNTABILITY.

(a) ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT ASSESSMENT- Each local educational agency that uses or receives 

funds under this subpart for a fiscal year shall administer an assessment that is consistent with 

section 1111(b)(3).

(b) DETERMINATION REGARDING CONTINUING PARTICIPATION- Each State educational agency 

that receives funding under the provisions of law described in section 6211(c) shall —

(1) after the third year that a local educational agency in the State participates in a 

program under this subpart and on the basis of the results of the assessments described 

in subsection (a), determine whether the local educational agency participating in the 

program made adequate yearly progress, as described in section 1111(b)(2);

(2) permit only those local educational agencies that participated and made adequate 

yearly progress, as described in section 1111(b)(2), to continue to participate; and

(3) permit those local educational agencies that participated and failed to make 

adequate yearly progress, as described in section 1111(b)(2), to continue to participate 

only if such local educational agencies use applicable funding under this subpart to carry 

out the requirements of section 1116.

Subpart 2 — Rural and Low-Income School Program

SEC. 6221. PROGRAM AUTHORIZED.

(a) GRANTS TO STATES-

(1) IN GENERAL- From amounts appropriated under section 6234 for this subpart for a 

fiscal year that are not reserved under subsection (c), the Secretary shall award grants 
50

(from allotments made under paragraph (2)) for the fiscal year to State educational 

agencies that have applications submitted under section 6223 approved to enable the 

State educational agencies to award grants to eligible local educational agencies for 

local authorized activities described in section 6222(a).

(2) ALLOTMENT- From amounts described in paragraph (1) for a fiscal year, the 

Secretary shall allot to each State educational agency for that fiscal year an amount that 

bears the same ratio to those amounts as the number of students in average daily 

attendance served by eligible local educational agencies in the State for that fiscal year 

bears to the number of all such students served by eligible local educational agencies in 

all States for that fiscal year.

(3) SPECIALLY QUALIFIED AGENCIES-

(A) ELIGIBILITY AND APPLICATION- If a State educational agency elects not to 

participate in the program under this subpart or does not have an application 

submitted under section 6223 approved, a specially qualified agency in such 

State desiring a grant under this subpart may submit an application under such 

section directly to the Secretary to receive an award under this subpart.

(B) DIRECT AWARDS- The Secretary may award, on a competitive basis or by 

formula, the amount the State educational agency is eligible to receive under 

paragraph (2) directly to a specially qualified agency in the State that has 

submitted an application in accordance with subparagraph (A) and obtained 

approval of the application.

(C) SPECIALLY QUALIFIED AGENCY DEFINED- In this subpart, the term specially 

qualified agency' means an eligible local educational agency served by a State 

educational agency that does not participate in a program under this subpart in 

a fiscal year, that may apply directly to the Secretary for a grant in such year 

under this subsection.

(b) LOCAL AWARDS-

(1) ELIGIBILITY- A local educational agency shall be eligible to receive a grant under this 

subpart if —

(A) 20 percent or more of the children ages 5 through 17 years served by the 

local educational agency are from families with incomes below the poverty line; 

and

(B) all of the schools served by the agency are designated with a school locale 

code of 6, 7, or 8, as determined by the Secretary.

(2) AWARD BASIS- A State educational agency shall award grants to eligible local 

educational agencies —

(A) on a competitive basis;

(B) according to a formula based on the number of students in average daily 

attendance served by the eligible local educational agencies or schools in the 

State; or

(C) according to an alternative formula, if, prior to awarding the grants, the 

State educational agency demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the Secretary, that 
51

the alternative formula enables the State educational agency to allot the grant 

funds in a manner that serves equal or greater concentrations of children from 

families with incomes below the poverty line, relative to the concentrations that 

would be served if the State educational agency used the formula described in 

subparagraph (B).

(c) RESERVATIONS- From amounts appropriated under section 6234 for this subpart for a fiscal 

year, the Secretary shall reserve--

(1) one-half of 1 percent to make awards to elementary schools or secondary schools 

operated or supported by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, to carry out the activities 

authorized under this subpart; and

(2) one-half of 1 percent to make awards to the outlying areas in accordance with their 

respective needs, to carry out the activities authorized under this subpart.

SEC. 6222. USES OF FUNDS.

(a) LOCAL AWARDS- Grant funds awarded to local educational agencies under this subpart shall 

be used for any of the following:

(1) Teacher recruitment and retention, including the use of signing bonuses and other 

financial incentives.

(2) Teacher professional development, including programs that train teachers to utilize 

technology to improve teaching and to train special needs teachers.

(3) Educational technology, including software and hardware, as described in part D of 

title II.

(4) Parental involvement activities.

(5) Activities authorized under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program under part A of 

title IV.

(6) Activities authorized under part A of title I.

(7) Activities authorized under title III.

(b) ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS- A State educational agency receiving a grant under this subpart 

may not use more than 5 percent of the amount of the grant for State administrative costs and 

to provide technical assistance to eligible local educational agencies.

SEC. 6223. APPLICATIONS.

(a) IN GENERAL- Each State educational agency or specially qualified agency desiring to receive a 

grant under this subpart shall submit an application to the Secretary at such time, in such 

manner, and accompanied by such information as the Secretary may require.

(b) CONTENTS- At a minimum, each application submitted under subsection (a) shall include 

information on specific measurable goals and objectives to be achieved through the activities 

carried out through the grant, which may include specific educational goals and objectives 

relating to —

(1) increased student academic achievement;
52

(2) decreased student dropout rates; or

(3) such other factors as the State educational agency or specially qualified agency may 

choose to measure.

SEC. 6224. ACCOUNTABILITY.

(a) STATE REPORT- Each State educational agency that receives a grant under this subpart shall 

prepare and submit an annual report to the Secretary. The report shall describe —

(1) the method the State educational agency used to award grants to eligible local 

educational agencies, and to provide assistance to schools, under this subpart;

(2) how local educational agencies and schools used funds provided under this subpart; 

and

(3) the degree to which progress has been made toward meeting the goals and 

objectives described in the application submitted under section 6223.

(b) SPECIALLY QUALIFIED AGENCY REPORT- Each specially qualified agency that receives a grant 

under this subpart shall provide an annual report to the Secretary. Such report shall describe —

(1) how such agency uses funds provided under this subpart; and

(2) the degree to which progress has been made toward meeting the goals and 

objectives described in the application submitted under section 6223.

(c) REPORT TO CONGRESS- The Secretary shall prepare and submit to the Committee on 

Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Health, 

Education, Labor, and Pensions of the Senate a biennial report. The report shall describe —

(1) the methods the State educational agencies used to award grants to eligible local 

educational agencies, and to provide assistance to schools, under this subpart;

local educational agencies and schools used funds provided under this subpart; and

(3) the degree to which progress has been made toward meeting the goals and 

objectives described in the applications submitted under section 6223.

(d) ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT ASSESSMENT- Each local educational agency or specially qualified 

agency that receives a grant under this subpart for a fiscal year shall administer an assessment 

that is consistent with section 1111(b)(3).

(e) DETERMINATION REGARDING CONTINUING PARTICIPATION- Each State educational agency 

or specially qualified agency that receives a grant under this subpart shall —

(1) after the third year that a local educational agency or specially qualified agency in 

the State receives funds under this subpart, and on the basis of the results of the 

assessments described in subsection (d) —

(A) in the case of a local educational agency, determine whether the local 

educational agency made adequate yearly progress, as described in section 

1111(b)(2); and

(B) in the case of a specially qualified agency, submit to the Secretary 

information that would allow the Secretary to determine whether the specially 
53

qualified agency has made adequate yearly progress, as described in section 

1111(b)(2);

(2) permit only those local educational agencies or specially qualified agencies that 

made adequate yearly progress, as described in section 1111(b)(2), to continue to 

receive grants under this subpart; and

(3) permit those local educational agencies or specially qualified agencies that failed to 

make adequate yearly progress, as described in section 1111(b)(2), to continue to 

receive such grants only if the State educational agency disbursed such grants to the 

local educational agencies or specially qualified agencies to carry out the requirements 

of section 1116.

Subpart 3 — General Provisions

SEC. 6231. ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY ATTENDANCE DETERMINATION.

(a) CENSUS DETERMINATION- Each local educational agency desiring a grant under section 6212 

and each local educational agency or specially qualified agency desiring a grant under subpart 2 

shall —

(1) not later than December 1 of each year, conduct a census to determine the number 

of students in average daily attendance in kindergarten through grade 12 at the schools 

served by the agency; and

(2) not later than March 1 of each year, submit the number described in paragraph (1) 

to the Secretary (and to the State educational agency, in the case of a local educational 

agency seeking a grant under subpart (2)).

(b) PENALTY- If the Secretary determines that a local educational agency or specially qualified 

agency has knowingly submitted false information under subsection (a) for the purpose of 

gaining additional funds under section 6212 or subpart 2, then the agency shall be fined an 

amount equal to twice the difference between the amount the agency received under this 

section and the correct amount the agency would have received under section 6212 or subpart 

2 if the agency had submitted accurate information under subsection (a).

SEC. 6232. SUPPLEMENT, NOT SUPPLANT.

Funds made available under subpart 1 or subpart 2 shall be used to supplement, and not 

supplant, any other Federal, State, or local education funds.

SEC. 6233. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this part shall be construed to prohibit a local educational agency that enters into 

cooperative arrangements with other local educational agencies for the provision of special, 

compensatory, or other education services, pursuant to State law or a written agreement, from 

entering into similar arrangements for the use, or the coordination of the use, of the funds 

made available under this part.
54

SEC. 6234. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this part $300,000,000 for fiscal year 2002 

and such sums as may be necessary for each of the 5 succeeding fiscal years, to be distributed 

equally between subparts 1 and 2.
55

APPENDIX B: Methodology 

Survey Instrument Development

To develop the district survey instrument, the study team first compiled and reviewed background 

information on REAP (REAP guidance documents and websites), observed REAP informational webinars, 

and interviewed Department personnel responsible for REAP (the SSRP team leader, SSRP program 

officers, and SSRP data analyst). Many of the survey questions were adapted from relevant questions 

used in other studies. For example, questions about technical assistance have their roots in those

developed and used in a study of RLIS districts (U.S. Department of Education et al. 2010). Creation of 

questions about the use of REAP-Flex started with items used in a study of districts eligible to exercise 

REAP-Flex (U.S. Department of Education et al. 2007). These items are footnoted in Appendix D. A panel 

of district administrators was also convened to give input on the study design and data collection 

instruments.

Internal pretesting of survey items was conducted to ensure clarity. In April 2014, the survey was piloted

with seven randomly selected district administrators across the four census regions to approximate the 

average respondent. After the administrators took the survey, the researchers telephoned each of them 

to discuss clarity of wording and flow, how they interpreted the questions, and any issues that may have 

come up. The survey was revised on the basis of this feedback. Finally, personnel from the Department

responsible for administering REAP provided feedback on a draft of the survey to ensure accuracy and 

clarity.

Survey Sampling 

State interviews—The interview sample consisted of the person responsible for administering REAP in 

each of the 47 states with districts with districts that drew down REAP funds in 2014–15. According to 

publicly-available eligibility and grantee spreadsheets, no districts in Hawaii or Washington, D.C.

received REAP funds in 2014–15, so they were excluded from data collection. The state coordinators in 

Vermont and Maryland indicated that although districts were eligible for REAP funds, no districts had

drawn down their REAP funds in FY2014. For consistency, Vermont and Maryland, along with their 

REAP-eligible districts, were excluded from all analyses.

District survey—The district survey sample comprised 1,005 districts randomly selected to be 

representative of the population of SRSA grantees and RLIS-eligible districts in 2014–15. The districts 

were stratified by the two grantee types (SRSA and RLIS) and the nine U.S. census divisions shown in

Exhibit A-1, resulting in 18 strata, to arrive at districts representative of the population of SRSA grantees 

and RLIS-eligible districts in 2014–15. Information on RLIS district subgrants were not available. 

However, approximately 96 percent of RLIS-eligible districts had received RLIS funds in 2013–14, as 

indicated on RLIS subgrantee lists that state REAP coordinators submitted in spring 2014. Therefore, the 

sample was pulled from that population of districts, expecting that the rate of subgrants would be 

similar in 2014–15. During initial outreach to the states and districts in fall 2014, districts that did not 

receive funds and were replaced with others randomly sampled from the same census division that did 

receive funds. As stated, during data collection the Vermont state coordinator reported the two RLISeligible districts in Vermont did not receive any funds. For consistency, the entire state was excluded 

from the analysis.
56

A study of SRSA-eligible districts conducted in 2005–06 had found that half those districts exercised the 

REAP-Flex provision (U.S. Department of Education et al. 2007). To ensure adequate representation of 

districts exercising REAP-Flex in the survey sample, SRSA districts were oversampled. The final sample 

included approximately twice as many SRSA grantees as RLIS subgrantees (Exhibit B-1). Survey responses 

from districts using REAP-Flex and study findings about SRSA grantees’ experiences in choosing whether 

to exercise REAP-Flex and how they used the provision can be generalized reliably to the national 

population. The report relies on district survey responses to identify which districts used the REAP-Flex

option.

Exhibit B-1: Study sampling frame

Census 

region Census division

No. of SRSAeligible

districts

No. of RLISeligible districts

Northeast Middle Atlantic 211 98

New England 282 76

Northeast total 493 174

South East South Central 19 351

South Atlantic 28 295

West South Central 798 458

South total 845 1,104

Midwest East North Central 623 330

West North Central 1,091 169

Midwest total 1,714 499

West Mountain 671 119

Pacific 551 116

West total 1,222 235

Total 4,274 2,012

Note: The sampling frame included two RLIS-eligible districts from Vermont that were later excluded from the study because the state REAP 

coordinator confirmed that they did not receive any funds. 

Source: SRSA award spreadsheets and RLIS eligibility spreadsheets for 2014–15 posted on U.S. Department of Education website.

This sampling design enabled separate reporting on SRSA and RLIS districts and on use of REAP-Flex. In 

addition, the study’s Technical Working Group stressed that rural districts vary greatly depending on 

their locations. Therefore, to ensure adequate numbers of districts to derive statements about REAP 

districts by Census region (Midwest, Northeast, South, and West), the sample included equal numbers of 

districts in each region within each program type.25 The resulting sample represented the population of 

SRSA grantees and RLIS-eligible districts in 2014–15.

District interviews—The study design called for follow-up interviews with REAP coordinators from 

30 school districts that had responded to the survey. The district interview sample comprised 10 RLIS 

districts, 10 SRSA districts exercising REAP-Flex, and 10 SRSA districts not exercising REAP-Flex. 

 25 To ensure that the sample reflected the geographic distribution of REAP districts, sampled districts were allocated to each 

Census division (subcategory within Census region) proportionally based on the number of districts in the sampling universe 

within each division and program type.
57

Survey Administration and Interview Completion

State interviews—REAP coordinators in all 47 states with REAP districts participated in the interviews.

District survey—Overall, the survey response rate was 95 percent (Exhibit B-2). Of the 950 district 

respondents, 316 were RLIS subgrantees and 634 were SRSA grantees. In contacting the states and 

districts for the survey administration, eight districts reported that they were not receiving funds in the 

2014–15 school year. Each of these districts was replaced with another randomly sampled district of the 

same grantee type and from the same census division.

Exhibit B-2: Response rate and number of respondents by strata

 SRSA districts RLIS districts

Census region Census division Percent Number Percent Number

Midwest East North Central 97 59 95 53

West North Central 96 102 96 27

Midwest total 96 161 95 80

Northeast Middle Atlantic 94 67 98 46

New England 94 90 89 33

Northeast total 94 157 94 79

South East South Central 75 3 96 26

South Atlantic 100 6 100 22

West South Central 95 150 77 27

South total 95 159 89 79

West Mountain 95 87 95 41

Pacific 93 70 100 41

West total 94 157 98 82

Total 95 634 94 316

Source: District survey.

District interviews—The overall response rate to the interviews was 80 percent—from six RLIS districts, 

10 SRSA districts exercising REAP-Flex, and eight SRSA districts not exercising REAP-Flex—for a total of 

24 interviews with district REAP coordinators.

Data Analysis and Reporting

The district survey was administered to a nationally representative sample of all REAP districts. In the 

analysis, the total number of weighted responses equaled the total number of districts in each stratum

in the sampling frame. The weighted percentages reported based on the district survey represent the 

estimated percentages of all REAP districts nationally in 2014–15, both overall and by program type. The 

standard errors reported in each exhibit in Appendix F provide a metric for interpreting how precisely 

each percentage estimates the percentage in the national population; a smaller standard error indicates 

a more precise estimate. Standard errors grow large when the number of observations is small. 

Therefore, estimates on items with an unweighted n below 10 are not reported. 
58

The interview protocols, particularly the state protocols, included some questions designed to be coded 

and counted quantitatively. These questions provided additional information that was not obtained on 

the survey. For these questions, the study team categorized responses and summed the number of 

respondents in each category.

The majority of interview questions, particularly on the district protocol, were designed to elicit 

descriptive detail to support or explain the survey findings. These questions covered topics from the 

survey, and interviewers examined the districts’ responses to the survey before conducting the 

interviews with the goal of guiding the interviews toward the most detailed examples possible. After

each interview, the interviewer prepared a written debrief, summarizing the participant’s responses to 

the questions. Researchers drew from these debrief guides, as well as transcripts and audio recordings 

of the interviews themselves, for illustrative examples and quotations from the participants throughout 

the report.
59

APPENDIX C: State REAP Coordinator Interview Guide

Note: Instructions to interviewer are in italics. Throughout the protocol, interviewers used the actual 

state name in lieu of “your state” as appropriate.

Role with REAP

1. Tell me a little bit about yourself. How long have you been at ________________ [use specific name 

of state education agency]? How long have you been in your current position? What are your roles 

and responsibilities regarding REAP? [Note to interviewer: The protocol includes additional questions 

about state technical assistance activities in a later section.]

a. Do you have other job responsibilities in addition to the REAP program? [If yes] What do they 

include?

2. Are other staff at ________________ [use specific name of state education agency] involved in the 

REAP program? [If yes] What are their job titles and what are their responsibilities related to REAP? 

[The research team will code and quantify responses.]

3. How do you work with RLIS school districts? How do you work with SRSA school districts?

a. [Probe if not already addressed] How frequently do you communicate with RLIS school districts? 

What does this communication consist of?

b. [Probe if not already addressed] How frequently do you communicate with SRSA school 

districts? What does this communication consist of?

State Goals and Priorities

4. Does your state have any special goals or priorities with respect to rural education in particular? [If 

yes] What are they? Does your state have any goals or priorities that apply to all school districts, but 

that your state allows rural school districts to meet in different ways? [If yes] What are they? 

5. Does your state encourage school districts to use their REAP funds to support particular state goals 

or priority areas? [If yes ask 6a and 6b in addition to 6c. If no skip to 6c.]

a. Which goals and priority areas does your state encourage school districts to use their REAP 

funds to support, and why these? Does this differ for school districts depending on whether they 

receive RLIS or SRSA funds? [If yes] How does this differ for school districts depending on 

whether they receive RLIS or SRSA funds? 

b. How does your state communicate these goals and priorities to school districts? 

c. How does the REAP program fit into your state’s education system as a whole?
60

Planning Process for Use of Federal Funds

6. For the 2014–15 school year, did your state require school districts to submit any of the following as 

part of the planning process for the use of federal funds, including REAP funds? [For any items the 

state requires] When did your state require school districts to submit this?

Did your state require... {Read list and check appropriate box 

for each row. For any items the state requires, mark date due in 

final column.]

Required

Not

required

Don’t

know

Date due

A needs assessment □ □ □

A consolidated application or plan for the use of federal Title 

program funds including REAP

□ □ □

Anything else? [Please specify in box. The research team will 

code and quantify responses as appropriate.]

Eligibility for REAP

7. To determine eligibility for REAP funds, the U.S. Department of Education prepares spreadsheets 

listing the districts in each state, as well as their locale codes and percent of children from families 

below the poverty line. The states are asked to add the average daily attendance (ADA), state rural 

designations, Title IIa allocation, and population density for each of their districts before 

resubmitting the populated spreadsheets to the Department so that the REAP Program Office can 

use these data to determine eligibility for REAP and SRSA award amounts. What is your state’s 

process for completing this spreadsheet? 

a. Does your state review the accuracy of the data provided by the U.S. Department of 

Education?

Yes / No [Circle one]

[If yes]How?
61

[Note to interviewer: The state must provide the required information so that the U.S. Department of 

Education can determine districts’ eligibility for SRSA (average daily attendance, state rural 

designation, population density) and their allocation amounts (a district’s Title IIA allocation is used 

to determine the amount of its SRSA allocation). After determining that a district does not meet SRSA 

eligibility, the U.S. Dept. of Education REAP Office can then determine RLIS eligibility.]

b.Where do the data on average daily attendance and state rural designation typically come 

from (e.g., state databases, directly from the districts, etc.)? [For data that come directly from 

school districts] When did your state require school districts to submit this?

[Mark all that apply]

Average 

daily 

attendance

State rural 

designation

Don’t 

know

State databases □ □ □

Directly from districts □

Date due:

_______

□

Date due:

________

□

Other (Specify 

_______________________________________)

□ □

a. [If ADA and/or state rural designation come from state database, ask] Do you encourage or 

require school districts to verify these data (to avoid any problems with grant eligibility and 

awards)? [Circle one] Yes / No [If yes] How? 

b. [If state obtain ADA and/or state rural designation from the districts, ask] Does your state 

review the accuracy of the eligibility data provided by school districts in your state before 

returning these spreadsheets to the U.S. Department of Education? [Circle one] Yes / No [If yes] 

How?

c. What is the timeline for this process?

d. What challenges does your state encounter in the process of verifying or submitting eligibility 

data to the U.S. Department of Education?

Next I would like to ask you a series of questions about RLIS subgrantees followed by some questions 

about SRSA grantees.
62

Management and Distribution of RLIS Funds 

8. Does your state notify RLIS-eligible school districts about their eligibility to receive funds? [Note to 

interviewer: RLIS funds are allocated to states which in turn make subgrant awards to school 

districts.]

[Mark one]

 Yes [Ask 8a]

 No [Skip to 9]

a. [If yes] How do you notify school districts?

9. Does your state require RLIS-eligible school districts to submit a request or go through a formal 

planning process to receive RLIS funds? [If no skip to 10b.]

[Mark one]

 Yes, submit a request

 Yes, formal review process

 No (neither) [Skip to 9b]

a. Please describe the process that must be followed by school districts. Probe to understand the 

process, for example: 

• How often does your state require school districts to submit a request? What information, if 

any, does your state require school districts to provide to obtain RLIS funds (e.g., as part of 

their consolidated application, needs assessment data)? What information and assistance, if 

any, does the state provide to school districts about the application process? 

b. How does your state determine the amount of school districts’ RLIS awards—competition or 

formula—and why? 

[Mark one]

 Formula [Ask 9c]

 Competition [Ask 9d]
63

c. [If formula] What does your state consider in determining the amount of the awards for 

districts?

[Mark one]

 Average Daily Attendance

 Other (Specify)

d. [If competition] What criteria are used for the competition to award RLIS funds?

10. What is the timeline of your state’s receipt of RLIS funds from the U.S. Department of Education and 

then the subgranting to school districts (e.g., how long is this process from planning to school 

district receipt of funds, when does the state receive RLIS funds, when does the state determine 

allocations to school districts, when in the school year do school districts actually receive the funds)? 

a. Are there any challenges that arise due to the timing of the receipt of RLIS funds? [If yes] Please 

describe these challenges.

11. Has your state’s process for the allocation and award of RLIS funds changed over time? [If yes] How

has this process changed over time?

12. Does your state place any restrictions on what amount or share of the RLIS grant districts may draw 

down at any one time (e.g., 10 percent limit)? Does your state place any other restrictions on the 

use of RLIS funds? [If yes] Why does your state place these restrictions?

13. Does your state conduct any monitoring or evaluation activities of RLIS-subgrantee expenditures

and uses of funds? [If yes] What do these activities consist of? 

a. How does your state use this information? 

b. [Ask if the respondent has not already discussed the Consolidated State Performance Report 

(CSPR)] Does your state use what’s been learned from monitoring and evaluation to inform what 

is reported on the Consolidated State Performance Report (CSPR) submitted annually to the 

Department?
64

Management of SRSA Funds and Eligibility Notification

14. The U.S. Department of Education awards SRSA funds directly to school districts. What role, if any, 

does your state play in the management of SRSA? [Probe for description of the state role related to 

SRSA. Information will be coded and quantified based on interview responses.]

a. Does your state notify SRSA districts about their eligibility for SRSA funds? 

[Mark one]

 Yes

 No [Skip to 14c]

b. [If yes] How does your state notify SRSA-eligible districts?

c. In what other ways is the ________________ [use specific name of state education agency] 

involved in the management of SRSA funds?

Use of REAP-Flex

Now I would like to ask a few questions about a special provision of SRSA, REAP-Flex, sometimes 

referred to as SRSA Flexibility, REAP-Flex, SRSA Flex, REAPing, or Flexing. 

15. How familiar are you with the REAP-Flex option for SRSA grantees? 

a. [If respondent indicates some familiarity] Could you describe your understanding of this 

option? 

[Note to interviewer: If respondent is not familiar with REAP-Flex or expresses confusion about the 

provision, provide the following description of REAP-Flex.]

Description of REAP-Flex: The REAP Flexibility provision (REAP-Flex) provides SRSA-eligible districts the 

flexibility to use “applicable funding” (i.e., specific federal Title program funds) to support local activities 

under an array of federal Title programs in order to assist them in addressing local academic needs more 

effectively. “Applicable funding” includes all funds allocated by formula to an eligible district under four 

programs.26 Of these four programs, currently only Title II Part A is funded (Teacher and Principal 

Training and Recruiting Fund). The REAP Flexibility provision does not provide any additional funding. 

Rather, it allows school districts to use all or part of its Title IIA funds for local activities authorized under 

one or more of the following federal Title programs:

• Title I Part A: Improving the Achievement of Disadvantaged Children

• Title II Part D: Educational Technology State Grants

• Title III: Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students

 26 (1) Subpart 2 of Part A of Title II (Improving Teacher Quality State Grants); (2) Part D of Title II (Educational Technology State 

Grants); (3) Part A of Title IV (Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities); and (4) Part A of Title V (State Grants for 

Innovative Programs).
65

• Title IV Part A: Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities

• Title IV Part B: 21st-Century Community Learning Centers

• Title V Part A: State Grants for Innovative Programs

b. Do you think that the SRSA grantees in your state that are using REAP-Flex benefit from using 

this option? Why or why not? 

c. Do you think that the SRSA grantees in your state that are not using REAP-Flex would benefit? 

Why or why not?

d. What about RLIS school districts? If a provision like REAP-Flex were available as part of RLIS, do 

you think RLIS subgrantees in your state would benefit from using this option? Why or why not?

16. What information and assistance, if any, does your state provide to school districts about REAPFlex? Probe for:

a. Notifying school districts of the existence of REAP-Flex

b. Restrictions/limitations on applicable funds—amounts or types of funds that could be used 

under REAP-Flex

c. Restrictions/limitations on allowable uses—how to coordinate REAP funds with allowed federal 

total program funds
66

Technical Assistance Needs and Challenges

17. Does your state provide any types of technical assistance to REAP school districts? [Note to 

interviewer: For Question 9a the respondent may have already mentioned technical assistance 

provided concerning the RLIS application process.]

a. [If yes] What types of assistance does your state offer? Does that assistance differ based on 

whether school districts receive RLIS or SRSA grants? 

b. Is technical assistance provided by another organization (e.g., Regional Educational Laboratory, 

Regional Comprehensive Center, Content Center)? [If yes] Which one(s)? [Mark all that apply 

below] What types of assistance do they offer? 

[Mark all that apply]

 Regional Educational Laboratory [Ask only about lab that serves state]

Appalachia, Central, Midwest, Northwest, Pacific, Southeast, Southwest, Pacific

 Regional Comprehensive Center [Ask only about center that serves state]

Appalachia, California, Central, Florida and Islands, Great Lakes, Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, 

North Central, Northeast, Northwest, Pacific, South Central, Southeast, Texas, West

Content Centers

 Center on Building State Capacity and Productivity

 Center on College and Career Readiness and Success

 Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes

 Center on Great Teachers and Leaders

 Center on Innovations in Learning

 Center on School Turnaround

 Center on Standards and Assessments Implementation

 Other [Specify]

18. What are the major technical assistance needs that your state has and the challenges that it faces in 

supporting the needs of REAP districts?
67

19. Has your state received any technical assistance to help the state administer the RLIS program (e.g., 

from the U.S. Department of Education REAP Program Office, fellow state coordinators, Regional 

Educational Laboratories, Regional Comprehensive Centers, Content Centers)? 

[Mark all that apply]

 U.S. Department of Education REAP Program Office

 Fellow state REAP coordinators

 Regional Educational Laboratory [Ask only about lab that serves state]

Appalachia, Central, Midwest, Northwest, Pacific, Southeast, Southwest, Pacific

 Regional Comprehensive Center [Ask only about center that serves state]

Appalachia, California, Central, Florida and Islands, Great Lakes, Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, 

North Central, Northeast, Northwest, Pacific, South Central, Southeast, Texas, West

Content Centers

 Center on Building State Capacity and Productivity

 Center on College and Career Readiness and Success

 Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes

 Center on Great Teachers and Leaders

 Center on Innovations in Learning

 Center on School Turnaround

 Center on Standards and Assessments Implementation

 Other [Specify]

a. [If received technical assistance] How useful have you found this assistance to be? Do you have 

any suggestions to improve the technical assistance provided? Do you have any suggestions for 

other types of technical assistance that would be useful for your state?

20. Does the state collect information from districts on technical assistance needs? [Note to interviewer: 

refer to any information learned earlier in the interview about program evaluation and reporting 

activities]

[If yes] What information does the state collect? Does this differ for RLIS and SRSA districts? 

What do you do with these data?
68

Recommendations for Change

21. What recommendations do you have to improve the REAP program? [Probe for eligibility,

allocations, authorized uses for funds.]

a. What recommendations do you have to improve the administration of the RLIS program? [Probe for 

timing of eligibility notification, timing of allocations and awards.]

b. What recommendations do you have to improve the administration of the SRSA program?

c. What recommendations do you have to improve the administration of REAP-Flex? 

22. Would you describe your overall satisfaction with the REAP program as [Read options below]? Why?

Very 

dissatisfied 

Somewhat 

dissatisfied 

Neither 

satisfied 

nor 

dissatisfied 

Somewhat 

satisfied

Very 

satisfied 

[Mark one] □ □ □ □ □

23. Would you describe your overall level of satisfaction with the administration of the REAP program 

by the U.S. Department of Education REAP Program Office as [Read options below]? Why?

Very 

dissatisfied 

Somewhat 

dissatisfied 

Neither 

satisfied 

nor 

dissatisfied 

Somewhat 

satisfied 

Very 

satisfied 

[Mark one] □ □ □ □ □
APPENDIX D: District REAP Coordinator Survey 

Notes to the reader: 

1)	 All items are asked of both RLIS and SRSA grantees, unless otherwise specified. When a 

question or subitem was asked of only one grantee type, it is denoted with a note in red 

text and brackets (e.g., {SRSA only}). 

2)	 There are additional directions to the programmer of the online survey, also denoted in 

red text and brackets (e.g., {Only ask if they said “NO” to Q23}). 

3)	 Throughout the survey, the word “{REAP}” was replaced with “RLIS” for RLIS subgrantees 

and “SRSA” for SRSA grantees. 

69 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Email Text with Survey Link 

Dear {District REAP Coordinator name}: 

Your school district has been selected to participate in the U.S. Department of Education (the 

Department)’s Study of Experiences and Needs of REAP Grantees survey. The survey takes 

approximately 30–40 minutes to complete. 

The results of this study will help inform the Department’s technical assistance efforts and the next 

reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Act. REAP grantees and 

subgrantees are required to cooperate with federal studies of their programs under Section 9306(a)(4) 

of ESEA. 

We ask that you complete this survey no later than {January 21, 2015}. 

LINK INFO 

If you are not the best person to respond to questions about the REAP program, please send a message 

to reap@sri.com with the name, email address, and phone number of a more appropriate respondent in 

your district. If your district did not receive REAP funds for school year 2014–15, please call 

800-366-7744. 

70 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Linked Log-in Page Text 

Welcome to the {REAP} survey. This survey includes questions about the eligibility determination 

process for {REAP}, how your school district uses {REAP}funds, and your school district’s {REAP}-related 

technical assistance needs. Please consult with other staff members in your district as needed to 

answer these questions. If you would to print out a copy of this survey to get feedback from other staff 

members, please click here to access a PDF. This is intended for your reference only. Please note that 

you still must fill out the survey online. 

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of 

information unless such collection displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number 

for this information collection is 1875-0274. The time required to complete this information collection is 

estimated to average 30–40 minutes, including the time to review instructions and complete and review 

the information collection. 

Please complete this survey by {DateDue}, 2015. 

Reporting 

Responses to this data collection will be used only for statistical purposes. As part of the study, the 

research team will share its findings with the U.S. Department of Education and other federal agencies. 

However, your individual district name will not be used in any published report, and your responses will 

be combined with information collected from approximately 800 other school districts for reporting. 

Confidentiality 

Your individual responses to this survey will be confidential. We will not provide information that 

identifies you or your district to anyone outside the study team, except as required by law. Unique 

identification numbers will be assigned to individuals and to sites for the data collected. There are no 

known risks for participating in this study. A publicly available report will be made available in 2016. 

Your cooperation in completing this survey will help to make the results of this evaluation 

comprehensive, reliable, and timely. 

If you have any questions or concerns regarding the study and would like to talk with someone other 

than the researchers, you may contact Judy Sheehan, Human Subjects Committee, SRI International, 333 

Ravenswood Avenue, Menlo Park, CA 94025, 650-859-2686 and reference case number 1480. 

For More Information 

If you have comments or concerns regarding the status of your individual submission of this form, please 

call SRI at 800-366-7744, or email at reap@sri.com. 

By clicking “Next,” you certify that you are willing to participate in this survey. 

Thank you very much for your participation! 

NEXT 

71 
Survey 

Getting Started 

If you begin the survey and need to stop and come back to it, you may do so. You can 

re-use the link embedded in the email invitation to return to the survey and pick up 

where you left off. Your survey responses will be saved for each page when you click on 

the “Next” or “Back” arrows. 

You may move back and forth within the survey to review or edit your answers by using 

the "Back" and "Next" buttons at the bottom of the page. Do not use the "Back" button 

on your web browser or your answers may be lost. 

Please remember to click "Submit" on the final page of the survey to submit your 

answers. Once you hit "Submit," you will not be able to return to the survey. 

We appreciate your time, expertise, and thoughtfulness. Thank you. 

72 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 1 year  10 years  19 years  28 years  37 years 

 2 years  11 years  20 years  29 years  38 years 

 3 years  12 years  21 years  30 years  39 years 

 4 years  13 years  22 years  31 years  40 years 

 5 years  14 years  23 years  32 years  More than 40 years 

 6 years  15 years  24 years  33 years 

 7 years  16 years  25 years  34 years 

 8 years  17 years  26 years  35 years 

 9 years  18 years  27 years  36 years 

Background 

1.	 For the 2014–15 school year, what is your role in your school district? 

(Please select all that apply.) 

□ Superintendent 

□ School principal 

□ Financial officer 

□ General administrator for all federal programs 

□ Administrator for individual federal programs 

□ Administrator assigned specifically to manage REAP 

□ Teacher 

□ Instructional program coordinator 

□ Other (Please specify) 

2.	 Including the 2014–15 school year, how many years has your position in this district involved 

some responsibility or experience with the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP), either 

RLIS or SRSA? (If this is your first year select “1,” if it is your second year select “2,” etc.) 

73 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eligibility 

The following questions are about your experience in determining eligibility for and planning for 

{REAP} funds. 

3.	 For the 2014–15 school year, did the state allow or require your school district to verify the

average daily attendance (ADA) for your school district before SRSA eligibility data was

submitted to the U.S. Department of Education?

(Select one.) 

{SRSA districts Only} 

□	 Required to verify

□	 Encouraged to verify

□	 Allowed to verify

□	 No opportunity to verify

□	 Don’t know

4.	 Did your school district find out about your eligibility for {REAP} for the 2014–15 school year in

any of the following ways?

(Select one response per row.)

Don’t

know

Yes No 

Checked the eligibility spreadsheet for my state posted on the U.S. Department of □ □ □ Education website 

Was notified by the U.S. Department of Education {SRSA only}	 □ □ □

Checked my state’s website	 □ □ □

Was notified by my state	 □ □ □

Other (please specify) □ □ □

74 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.	 Did your school district find out about the amount of your {REAP} allocation for the 2014–15

school year in any of the following ways?

(Select one response per row.)

Yes No 

Don't 

know 

Checked the SRSA grant award spreadsheet for my state on the U.S. Department □ □ □ of Education website {SRSA only} 

Checked the U.S. Department of Education’s G5 grants management system □ □ □ {SRSA only} 

Was notified by the U.S. Department of Education {SRSA only}	 □ □ □

Checked my state’s website	 □ □ □

Was notified by my state	 □ □ □

Calculated the amount using the funding formula	 □ □ □

Other (please specify) □ □ □

75 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.	 Please answer the following questions about the timing of your school district’s financial planning 

and {REAP} allocation for the 2014–15 school year. 

(Select one response row.) 

When did your 2014–15 school year begin?	 □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

When did your school district begin planning for 

your spending in the 2014–15 school year? 

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

When did your school district finish planning for 

your spending in the 2014–15 school year? 

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

When was your school district’s consolidated plan 

including the budget for 2014–15 due to the 

state? 

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

When did your school district find out about your 

{REAP} eligibility for the 2014–15 school year? 

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

When did your school district find out the amount 

of your {REAP} award for the 2014–15 school 

year? 

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □

When were your school district’s {REAP} funds for 

the 2014–15 school year first available to your 

district? 

□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Before January 2014 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 Before June June 2014 July 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 August 2014 September 2014 September 2014 After September 2014 Don't know October 2014 After October 2014 Not applicable 

Don't know 

76 
 

 

 

 

 

□ □ □

□ □ □

□ □ □

□ □ □

□ □ □

□ □ □

□ □ □

□ □ □

□ □ □

 

 

Use of Funds 

The following questions will ask about how your school district chose to spend your {REAP} funds: the 

process for determining how to spend them, your district’s needs, and how {REAP} funds fit into your 

goals and other funding sources. 

7.	 For the 2014–15 school year, did your school district conduct a formal needs assessment to help 

decide how to spend your {REAP} funds? 

(Select one.) 

□ Yes 

□ No 

□ Don’t know 

8.	 For the 2014–15 school year, were any of the following people in your school district involved in 

deciding how to spend your {REAP} funds?27 

(Select one response per row.) 

Yes No Don’t know 

School board	 

Superintendent	 

School principal(s) 

Financial officer 

General administrator for all federal programs 

Administrator for individual federal programs 

Administrator assigned specifically to manage REAP 

Leadership team 

Instructional personnel (for example, teachers or program 

coordinators) 

Other (Please specify) 

27 Adapted from item 18 in the survey used for the Evaluation of flexibility (U.S. Department of Education, 2007) 

77 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9.	 For the 2014–15 school year, were you involved in deciding how your school district would spend 

its {REAP} funds? 

□ Yes 

□ No 

10. For the 2014–15 school year, is your school district using {REAP} funds to pay for activities in any 

of the following areas? 28 

(Select one response per row.) 

Don’t 

Yes No know 

Improving teacher retention and/or recruitment □ □ □

Providing professional development for teachers or administrators □ □ □

Improving or expanding access to technology □ □ □

Addressing drug abuse and/or violence in your community □ □ □

Addressing English language acquisition □ □ □

Increasing parental involvement □ □ □

Improving academic achievement through activities other than those listed 

above (Please specify.) □ □ □

11. In the 2014–15 school year, in which one area is your school district using the greatest portion of 

its REAP funds? 

(Select one.) 

{Ask only of those who select “Yes” to more than one item in Q10. Only show items selected in Q10} 

Improving teacher retention and/or recruitment 

Providing professional development 

Improving or expanding access to technology 

Addressing drug abuse and/or violence in your community 

Addressing English language acquisition 

Increasing parental involvement 

Improving academic achievement through {Text supplied by user in Q10} 

No primary focus 

Don’t know 

28	 Adapted from item 4 in the survey used for the Evaluation of the implementation of the RLIS program (U.S. Department of 

Education, 2010) 

78 
12. kjk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13. For the 2014–15 school year, does your school district target {REAP} funds to improve educational 

outcomes for any groups of students? (Select one.)29 

□ Yes 

□ No 

14. For the 2014–15 school year, which of the following groups of students does your school district 

target with {REAP} funds? (Select all that apply.) 

Low-income students □

English language learners □

Students with disabilities □

Low-performing students □

Male students □

Female students □

Hispanic students □

American Indian or Alaskan Native students □

Asian students □

Black or African-American students □

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander students □

White students □

Students of two or more races □

None of these □

15. In the 2014–15 school year, to what extent do you think {REAP} funds are enabling your school 

district to better meet its goals, alone or in combination with other funds? 

(Select one.) 

□ Not at all 

□ To a minimal extent 

□ To a moderate extent 

□ To a great extent 

29 Adapted from item 20 in the survey used for the Evaluation of flexibility (U.S. Department of Education, 2007) 

79 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16. In the 2014–15 school year, is your school district using {REAP} funds in coordination with any of 

these other funding sources? 

(Select one response per row.) 

Don’t 

Yes No know 

U.S. Department of Education □ □ □

E-Rate □ □ □

U.S. Department of Agriculture □ □ □

Other federal funding sources 

□ □ □

(please specify) 

17. To what extent would you prefer to have a greater number of activities for which {REAP} funds 

could be used? 

(Select one.) 

□ Not at all 

□ To a minimal extent 

□ To a moderate extent 

□ To a great extent 

□ Don’t know 

The following question is about allowing greater flexibility in the use of federal Title program funds 

other than {REAP} funds. {RLIS only} 

18. To what extent would you value the authority to use all or part of specific federal Title program 

funds to support an array of other federal Title programs? 

(More specifically, this hypothetical provision would increase the number of allowable uses of your Title 

II-A funds, for example, so these funds could be spent on activities previously only allowable under other 

Title programs. For example, these funds could now be spent on technology programs.) 

(Select one.) 

{RLIS only} 

□ Not at all 

□ To a minimal extent 

□ To a moderate extent 

□ To a great extent 

□ Don’t know 

80 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

19. To what extent has each of the following been a challenge to your school district in using {REAP} 

funds? 

(Select one response per row.) 

To a To a To a 

minimal moderate great Don’t 

Not at all extent extent extent know 

The amount of {REAP} funds relative to district needs □ □ □ □ □

State restriction on how much of my school district’s □ □ □ □ □

RLIS funds can be drawn down at one time {RLIS only} 

Timeliness of notification about eligibility □ □ □ □ □

Turnover in school district leadership □ □ □ □ □

Timeliness of notification of award amount □ □ □ □ □

Timeliness of receipt of funds □ □ □ □ □

The time and effort it took my district to prepare □ □ □ □ □

eligibility information 

81 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REAP-Flex 

{Ask this entire section ONLY of SRSA grantees} 

The next set of questions is about your use of REAP Flexibility. 

The Rural Education Achievement Program Flexibility provision (REAP-Flex) provides SRSA-eligible 

districts the flexibility to use “applicable funding” (i.e., specific federal Title program funds) to support 

local activities under an array of federal Title programs in order to assist them in addressing local 

academic needs more effectively. “Applicable funding” includes all funds allocated by formula to an 

eligible district under four programs.

30 Of these four programs, currently only Title II Part A is funded. 

A school district, or LEA, with REAP-Flex authority may use all or part of its “applicable funding” for local 

activities authorized under one or more of the following federal Title programs: 

• Title I Part A: Improving the Achievement of Disadvantaged Children 

• Title II Part D: Educational Technology State Grants 

• Title III: Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students 

• Title IV Part A: Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities 

• Title IV Part B: 21st-Century Community Learning Centers 

• Title V Part A: State Grants for Innovative Programs 

The REAP Flexibility provision does not provide any additional funding. Rather, it allows districts to use 

Title II-A funds for local activities authorized under the above federal Title programs. 

REAP-Flex provides SRSA-eligible districts the flexibility to use applicable funding to support local 

activities under an array of federal Title programs.31 

20. Were you aware of the REAP Flexibility provision under SRSA prior to reading the description 

above? It may also be known as SRSA Flexibility, REAP-Flex, SRSA Flex, REAPing, Flexing, or 

another name. 

□ Yes 

□ No 

30	 The four programs are: (1) Subpart 2 of Part A of Title II (Improving Teacher Quality State Grants); (2) Part D of Title II 

(Educational Technology State Grants); (3) Part A of Title IV (Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities); and (4) Part A of 

Title V (State Grants for Innovative Programs). 31	 {This message was repeated at the top of each page in the survey section on REAP-Flex} 

82 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

21. Did you hear about REAP Flexibility in any of the following ways? 

(Select one response per row.)32 

{Ask only if they checked “YES” in Q20} 

Yes No 

U.S. Department of Education website or publication □ □

Direct communication with U.S. Department of Education staff □ □

Information or technical assistance provided by your state □ □

Regional Educational Laboratory or Comprehensive Center □ □

Other technical assistance provider (e.g., educational service district or other regional □ □

service center) 

Professional organization □ □

Colleague 

Other (please specify) □ □

22. To what extent do you feel you understood REAP-Flex prior to reading the description in this 

survey? 

(Select one.) 

{Ask only if they checked “YES” in Q20} 

□ Not at all 

□ To a minimal extent 

□ To a moderate extent 

□ To a great extent 

23. Is your school district exercising REAP-Flex authority in the 2014–15 school year?33 

(Select one.) 

□ Yes 

□ No 

□ Don’t know 

□ I don’t know what this means 

32 Adapted from item 2 in the survey used for the Evaluation of flexibility (U.S. Department of Education, 2007) 33 Adapted from item 10 in the survey used for the Evaluation of flexibility (U.S. Department of Education, 2007) 

83 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

24. How useful did you find the following sources for informing your decision about whether or not to 

use REAP-Flex in the 2014–15 school year? If you did not receive any information from a particular 

source, please check “No Information” in the final column.

34 

(Select one response per row.) 

Not at all 

useful 

Somewhat 

useful 

Very 

useful 

No 

information 

provided 

U.S. Department of Education website or publications □ □ □ □

Direct communication with U.S. Department of Education 

staff □ □ □ □

Information or technical assistance provided by your state □ □ □ □

Regional Educational Laboratory or Comprehensive 

Center 

Other technical assistance provider (e.g., educational □ □ □ □ service district or other regional service center) 

Professional organization □ □ □ □

Colleague 

Other (please specify) □ □ □ □

34 Adapted from item 4 in the survey used for the Evaluation of flexibility (U.S. Department of Education, 2007) 

84 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25. Did the following considerations factor into your school district’s decision not to use REAP-Flex in 

the 2014–15 school year? 35 

(Select one response per row.) 

{Only ask if they said “NO” to Q23} 

Yes No Don’t know 

We were not aware of the REAP-Flex option. 

□ □ □

We did not have enough information about REAP-Flex to make 

an informed decision. □ □ □

My school district used Transferability* instead of REAP-Flex. □ □ □

The amount of funds in applicable categories would have been 

too small to effectively carry out desired activities even after □ □ □

exercising the REAP-Flex option. 

We thought the accounting requirements associated with REAPFlex would have been burdensome. 

□ □ □

Other (please specify) □ □ □

* Transferability is separate from REAP-Flex; it allows states and school districts to transfer a portion of the funds 

that they receive under certain federal programs to other programs. All transferred funds are subject to the 

requirements of the program to which they are transferred. 

26. Has your school district used REAP-Flex authority in the 2014–15 school year in any of the 

following ways?36 

(Select one response per row.) 

{Ask only if they checked “YES” in Q23} 

Don’t 

Yes No know 

Increase the amount of federal funds available for high-priority programs □ □ □

Initiate new activities that would not have been possible without exercising REAP-Flex □ □ □

Maintain a stable level of effort for ongoing activities that have been affected by budgetary 

constraints □ □ □

Target particular student groups or outcomes □ □ □

35 Adapted from item 11 in the survey used for the Evaluation of flexibility (U.S. Department of Education, 2007) 36 Adapted from item 20 in the survey used for the Evaluation of flexibility (U.S. Department of Education, 2007) 

85 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

27. In which of these program categories is your school district using its REAP-Flex authority to fund 

activities in the 2014–15 school year?37 

(Select one response per row.) 

{Ask only if they checked “YES” in Q23} 

Don’t 

Yes No know 

Title I Part A: Improving the Achievement of Disadvantaged Children □ □ □

Title II Part D: Educational Technology State Grants □ □ □

Title III: Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students □ □ □

Title IV Part A: Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities □ □ □

Title IV Part B: 21st-Century Community Learning Centers □ □ □

Title V Part A: State Grants for Innovative Programs □ □ □

37 Adapted from item 14 and 21 in the survey used for the Evaluation of flexibility (U.S. Department of Education, 2007) 

86 
 

 

 

 

 

□ □ □ □ □

□ □ □ □ □

□ □ □ □ □

□ □ □ □ □

 

 

28. Please consider the following changes that might be made to the terms of the REAP-Flex 

provision. How would each of these possible changes affect your level of interest in [continuing to 

use][using] this provision next year? 38 

(Select one response per row.) 

{load “continuing to use” if they selected “yes” in Q23} 

{load “using” if they selected “no” in Q23} 

About 

the 

same 

level of 

interest 

Much 

higher 

level of 

interest 

Much 

lower level 

of interest 

Somewhat 

lower level 

of interest 

Somewhat 

higher level 

of interest 

If additional federal programs were funded 

or prohibited programs made allowable 

sources for REAP-Flex 

If accounting requirements were relaxed or 

assistance were offered to maintain 

necessary records 

If there were more information on how to 

use REAP-Flex 

Other (Please specify) 

38 Adapted from item 16 and 26 in the survey used for the Evaluation of flexibility (U.S. Department of Education, 2007) 

87 
 

 

 

 

 

Technical Assistance 

These questions will ask you about the major challenges your school district faces in administering 

your {REAP} funds and the types of assistance you have received. 

29. For the 2014–15 school year, to what extent have any of the following been a challenge for your 

school district in administering the REAP funds? 

(Select one response per row.) 

To a 

minimal 

extent 

To a 

moderate 

Not at all extent 

To a great 

extent 

Finding out if we are eligible for {REAP} funds □ □ □ □

Providing eligibility data to the state □ □ □ □

Finding out the amount of our award □ □ □ □

Finding out when we would receive our award □ □ □ □

Understanding allowable uses of funds □ □ □ □

Using the funds for activities aligned with our goals □ □ □ □

Understanding how to effectively coordinate {REAP} 

funds with other funding sources □ □ □ □

Understanding the accounting requirements for the 

funds □ □ □ □

Understanding the reporting requirements for the 

funds □ □ □ □

Understanding the REAP-Flex provision {SRSA only} □ □ □ □

Other (please specify) □ □ □ □

88 
 

 

 

 

□ □ □ □ □

□ □ □ □ □

□ □ □ □ □

□ □ □ □ □

□ □ □ □ □

□ □ □ □ □

 

□ □ □ □ □

□ □ □ □ □

30. To what extent do you feel you need assistance on administering your {REAP} funds? 

(Select one.) 

□ Not at all 

□ To a minimal extent 

□ To a moderate extent 

□ To a great extent 

31. For the 2014–15 school year, did you receive any assistance on any of the following? 

(Select all that apply in each row.) 

{If user selects “I received no assistance on this” in a row, do not allow selection of any other options; otherwise 

they may select any number per row} 

I received assistance... 

I received no 

assistance on 

this 

from a Regional 

Educational 

Laboratory or 

Comprehensive 

Center 

from 

another 

technical 

assistance 

provider 

from the U.S. 

Department of 

Education 

from my 

state 

Finding out if we are eligible 

for {REAP} funds 

Providing eligibility data to 

the state 

Finding out the amount of 

our award 

Finding out when we would 

receive our award 

Understanding allowable uses 

of funds 

Using the funds for activities 

aligned with our goals 

Understanding how to 

effectively coordinate {REAP} 

funds with other funding 

sources 

Understanding the 

accounting requirements for 

the funds 

89 
I received assistance... 

from a Regional 

Educational 

Laboratory or 

Comprehensive 

Center 

from 

another 

technical 

assistance

provider 

I received no 

assistance on 

from the U.S. this 

Department of 

Education 

from my 

state 

□ □ □ □ □

□ □ □ □ □

 

___________________________________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Content Centers 

 

Understanding the reporting 

requirements for the funds 

Understanding the REAP-Flex 

provision {SRSA only} 

32. What technical assistance provider has your district relied on for assistance related to planning for 

or using {REAP} funds for the 2014–15 school year? 

(Please type in the name of the provider.) 

{Ask only if they indicated on Q31 that they received assistance from another technical assistance provider on 

any topic} 

33. Which Regional Educational Laboratory or Comprehensive Center provided your district with 

assistance related to planning for or using {REAP} funds for the 2014–15 school year? 

(Select all that apply.) 

{Ask only if they indicated on Q31 that they received assistance from a REL or Comprehensive Center on any 

topic} 

 Center on Building State Capacity and Productivity 

 Center on College and Career Readiness and Success 

 Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes 

 Center on Great Teachers and Leaders 

 Center on Innovations in Learning 

 Center on School Turnaround 

 Center on Standards and Assessments Implementation 

Regional Comprehensive Centers {Only list center that serves state in which district is located} 

 Appalachia 

 California 

 Central 

 Florida and Islands 

 Great Lakes 

 Mid-Atlantic 

 Midwest 

 North Central 

90 
 

 

Question 33. (concluded) 

 Regional Comprehensive Centers {Only list center that serves state in which district is located} 

 Northeast 

 Northwest 

 Pacific 

 South Central 

 Southeast 

 Texas 

 West 

Regional Educational Laboratories {Only list REL that serves state in which district is located} 

 Appalachia 

 Central 

 Mid-Atlantic 

 Midwest 

 Northeast & islands 

 Northwest 

 Pacific 

 Southeast 

 Southwest 

 West 

91 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

34. For the 2014–15 school year, how helpful did you find the assistance from your state on each of 

these topics?39 

(Select one response per row.) 

{Carry forward the topics they checked under “... from my state” on Q31} 

Not at all Minimally Moderately 

helpful helpful helpful Very helpful 

Finding out if we are eligible for {REAP} funds □ □ □ □

Providing eligibility data to the state □ □ □ □

Finding out the amount of our award □ □ □ □

Finding out when we would receive our award □ □ □ □

Understanding allowable uses of funds □ □ □ □

Using the funds for activities aligned with our goals □ □ □ □

Understanding how to effectively coordinate {REAP} 

funds with other funding sources □ □ □ □

Understanding the accounting requirements for the 

funds □ □ □ □

Understanding the reporting requirements for the 

funds □ □ □ □

Understanding the REAP-Flex provision {SRSA only} □ □ □ □

39	 Adapted from item 15 in the survey used for the Evaluation of the implementation of the RLIS program (U.S. Department of 

Education, 2010) 

92 
 

 

 

 

 

35. For the 2014–15 school year, how helpful did you find the assistance from the U.S. Department of 

Education on each of these topics? 

(Select one response per row.) 

{Carry forward the topics they checked under “... from the U.S. Department of Education” on Q31} 

Not at all Minimally Moderately 

helpful helpful helpful Very helpful 

Finding out if we are eligible for {REAP} funds □ □ □ □

Providing eligibility data to the state □ □ □ □

Finding out the amount of our award □ □ □ □

Finding out when we would receive our award □ □ □ □

Understanding allowable uses of funds □ □ □ □

Using the funds for activities aligned with our goals □ □ □ □

Understanding how to effectively coordinate {REAP} 

funds with other funding sources □ □ □ □

Understanding the accounting requirements for the 

funds □ □ □ □

Understanding the reporting requirements for the 

funds □ □ □ □

Understanding the REAP-Flex provision {SRSA only} □ □ □ □

93 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

36. For the 2014–15 school year, how helpful did you find the assistance from any Regional 

Educational Laboratory or Comprehensive Center you interacted with on each of these topics? 

(Select one response per row.) 

{Carry forward the topics they checked under “... from a Regional Educational Laboratory or Comprehensive 

Center” on Q31} 

Not at all Minimally Moderately 

helpful helpful helpful Very helpful 

Finding out if we are eligible for {REAP} funds □ □ □ □

Providing eligibility data to the state □ □ □ □

Finding out the amount of our award □ □ □ □

Finding out when we would receive our award □ □ □ □

Understanding allowable uses of funds □ □ □ □

Using the funds for activities aligned with our goals □ □ □ □

Understanding how to effectively coordinate {REAP} 

funds with other funding sources □ □ □ □

Understanding the accounting requirements for the 

funds □ □ □ □

Understanding the reporting requirements for the 

funds □ □ □ □

Understanding the REAP-Flex provision {SRSA only} □ □ □ □

94 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

37. For the 2014–15 school year, how helpful did you find the assistance from any other technical 

assistance provider (such as an educational service district) you interacted with on each of these 

topics? 

(Select one response per row.) 

{Carry forward the topics they checked under “... technical service provider” on Q31} 

Not at all Minimally Moderately 

helpful helpful helpful Very helpful 

Finding out if we are eligible for {REAP} funds □ □ □ □

Providing eligibility data to the state □ □ □ □

Finding out the amount of our award □ □ □ □

Finding out when we would receive our award □ □ □ □

Understanding allowable uses of funds □ □ □ □

Using the funds for activities aligned with our goals □ □ □ □

Understanding how to effectively coordinate {REAP} 

funds with other funding sources □ □ □ □

Understanding the accounting requirements for the 

funds □ □ □ □

Understanding the reporting requirements for the 

funds □ □ □ □

Understanding the REAP-Flex provision {SRSA only} □ □ □ □

95 
 

38. Overall, how satisfied are you with the {REAP} program? 

(Select one.) 

□ Not satisfied 

□ Minimally satisfied 

□ Moderately satisfied 

□ Highly satisfied 

96 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX E: District REAP Coordinator Interview 

Guide 

Note: Instructions to interviewer are in italics. These instructions include any questions that need to be 

tailored to the type of grantee, RLIS or SRSA, and how they should be tailored. Throughout the protocol, 

interviewers used the actual school district name in lieu of “your school district” as appropriate. 

Role with REAP 

1.	 [Check role in the school district from Survey Q1] Tell me a little bit about yourself. How long have 

you been in _________________ school district? What are your roles and responsibilities regarding 

the REAP program? 

a.	 How frequently do you work with the school(s) in your school district regarding REAP? What 

does this work consist of? Are there other school district staff involved in the program? [If yes:] 

What position are they in and what are their responsibilities? 

b.	 (If not answered above) How frequently do you communicate with the school(s) in your school 

district regarding REAP? What does this communication consist of? 

c.	 Do you have other job responsibilities beyond the REAP program? [If yes] What do they include? 

2.	 How long have you been the coordinator for the REAP program in your school district? Have your 

roles or responsibilities changed over time? [If so] Please describe. 

[If respondent has had responsibilities related to REAP for six months or less and ends up not 

being able to answer many questions then go back and ask if the person who was previously 

responsible for the REAP program in the school district is available to talk.] Could you please go 

ahead and answer our questions to the best of your ability? We understand if your knowledge 

of past decisions or activities is incomplete. 

Goals and Priorities 

3.	 Does your school district have particular local goals or priority areas which you are using REAP funds 

to help support? [If so] Please describe them. 

4.	 Do you use any of your REAP funds to support particular state goals or priority areas? 

97 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[If yes] Which ones and why these? 

a.	 How does your state communicate these goals and priorities to you? 

b.	 Do these goals and priorities align with your own goals in a consistent way? Do you have any 

priorities that are either differently aligned or, in your opinion, misaligned with those of the 

state? 

REAP Eligibility and Planning 

5.	 Next, we’d like to talk about the eligibility determination process for REAP funds. Do you feel your 

school district understands how eligibility for REAP is determined? Do you feel your school district 

understands how the amount of REAP funds it receives is determined? 

a.	 The U.S. Department of Education prepares spreadsheets to collect data (e.g., poverty rate) in 

order to determine eligibility for REAP funds. Does your state provide your school district the 

opportunity to review the accuracy of data used to determine your annual eligibility for REAP 

funds? 

i.	 [If yes] Which of the following data elements does your school district review: contact 

information, locale codes of the schools in your district, information used to determine state 

designation as a rural district, average daily attendance, county population density, percent 

of children in poverty. 

ii.	 What challenges, if any, have been associated with determining if your school district is 

eligible for REAP funds? 

iii.	 Does your state have a process in place that your school districts finds helpful in determining 

eligibility? What suggestions do you have for improving this process? 

b.	 What challenges, if any, have been associated with determining if your school district is eligible 

and how much REAP funding you will receive? [If respondent lists challenges] What suggestions 

do you have for improving this process? 

6.	 Now we’d like to talk about how your school district plans for the use of REAP funds. Can you please 

describe your school district’s planning process for the use of these funds? 

a.	 If multiple actors are indicated in Survey Q12, ask: How do the different people in your school 

district work together to determine how the funds will be used? How many people are 

involved? Who makes the final decision about how funds will be used? Do you see these 

decisions as being driven by consensus? 

b.	 If respondent indicated in Survey Q4 that the school district submitted a needs assessment or 

consolidated application or plan related to the use of federal funds, ask: How useful did your 

school district find the process of preparing any information or documents you submitted to the 

state or federal REAP office related to the use of federal funds, including REAP funds? Why? 

98 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i.	 If respondent had indicated in Survey Q3 such a needs assessment or consolidated 

application or plan had not been required by the state or federal REAP office, probe as to 

why the school district chose to go through this process.] 

c.	 Did your school district face any challenges in preparing the information or documents you 

submitted to the state or the federal REAP office related to applying or planning for the use of 

REAP funds? If so, please describe. [Probe on any subitems the respondent indicated took “A 

Great deal” of time and effort in Survey Q6] 

i. What, if any, other challenges are associated with planning for the use of REAP Funds? 

[Probe on any planning-related challenges noted in Survey Q23 or Q33, particularly around 

timing of notification of award amount, and award receipt] 

d.	 Has your school district received any assistance to help plan how to use REAP funds? [If yes] 

From whom? [Probe for each of the technical assistance providers respondent indicated in 

Survey Q35 through Survey Q38: the U.S. Department of Education, the state, Regional 

Educational Laboratories, Comprehensive Centers (Regional or Content Centers), and other 

technical assistance providers.] 

i.	 How useful has your school district found this assistance to be? How did the assistance 

change the way your school district uses REAP funds? 

e.	 During the application and planning phases, how many hours would you estimate you (and as 

applicable, your team) spent in total this year (2014–15) on preparing for REAP funds (this 

includes such activities as conducting a needs assessment, planning for the use of REAP funds, 

submitting an application or eligibility-related data)? 

i.	 Do you think the REAP funding is worth the effort required? Why or why not? 

Use of REAP Funds 

[Note to interviewer: Ask Questions 7a – 7g as appropriate based on interviewee’s responses to Survey 

Q14 regarding the school district’s use(s) of REAP funds.] 

7a. Why did your school district choose to focus REAP funds on improving academic achievement? 

a.	 What has been the role of REAP funds in supporting strategies to improve academic 

achievement in your school district? 

b.	 What other funds are you using to address academic achievement and how are they used in 

combination with REAP funds? 

[The answer to this question should be limited to the actual use of REAP funds, not a general 

description of programs and strategies; therefore, probes should not suggest specific strategies, 

but rather prompt respondents to name their own strategies with enough detail to know what 

99 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

kind of strategy is being described, but not elaborate description of how each program/strategy 

works.] 

c.	 Have you received technical assistance in support of using REAP funds for strategies to improve 

academic achievement in your school district? From whom? [Probe for technical assistance 

providers indicated in Survey Q35 through Survey Q38: the U.S. Department of Education, the 

state, Regional Educational Laboratories, Comprehensive Centers, and other technical assistance 

providers.] 

i.	 What kind of technical assistance have you received? How helpful has it been? 

ii.	 Did the assistance change the way you used REAP funds for strategies to improve academic 

achievement? [If so, probe for concrete examples.] 

iii.	 Do you have any suggestions for how the technical assistance could be improved? 

iv.	 Do you have any suggestions for other types of technical assistance that would be useful for 

you in your use of REAP funds to support strategies to improve academic achievement in 

your school district? 

7b. Why did your school district choose to focus REAP funds on improving teacher retention and 

recruitment? Is the emphasis more on teacher recruitment or retention? (“Both” is an acceptable 

answer.) 

a.	 What has been the role of REAP funds in supporting teacher retention and recruitment 

strategies in your school district? 

b.	 What other funds are you using to address teacher retention and recruitment and how are they 

used in combination with REAP funds? 

[The answer to this question should be limited to the actual use of REAP funds, not a general 

description of programs and strategies; therefore, probes should not suggest specific strategies, 

but rather prompt respondents to name their own strategies with enough detail to know what 

kind of strategy is being described, but not elaborate description of how each program/strategy 

works.] 

c.	 Has your school district received technical assistance in support of using REAP funds for teacher 

retention and recruitment strategies in your school district? From whom? [Probe for technical 

assistance providers indicated in Survey Q35 through Survey Q38: the U.S. Department of 

Education, the state, Regional Educational Laboratories, Comprehensive Centers, and other 

technical assistance providers.] 

i.	 What kind of technical assistance have you received? How helpful has it been? 

ii.	 Did the assistance change the way you used REAP funds for teacher retention and 

recruitment? [If so, probe for concrete examples.] 

iii.	 Do you have any suggestions for how the technical assistance could be improved? 

iv.	 Do you have any suggestions for other types of technical assistance that would be useful 

for you in your use of REAP funds to support teacher retention and recruitment strategies 

in your school district? 

100 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7c. Why did your school district choose to focus REAP funds on providing professional development for 

teachers or administrators? 

a.	 What has been the role of REAP funds in supporting professional development strategies for 

teachers or administrators in your school district? 

b.	 What other funds are you using to address professional development for teachers or 

administrators and how are they used in combination with REAP funds? 

[The answer to this question should be limited to the actual use of REAP funds, not a general 

description of programs and strategies; therefore, probes should not suggest specific strategies, 

but rather prompt respondents to name their own strategies with enough detail to know what 

kind of strategy is being described, but not elaborate description of how each program/strategy 

works.] 

c.	 Has your school district received technical assistance in support of using REAP funds for 

professional development strategies for teachers or administrators in your school district? From 

whom? [Probe for technical assistance providers indicated in Survey Q35 through Survey Q38: 

the U.S. Department of Education, the state, Regional Educational Laboratories, Comprehensive 

Centers, and other technical assistance providers.] 

i.	 What kind of technical assistance have you received? How helpful has it been? 

ii.	 Did the assistance change the way you used REAP funds for professional development for 

teachers or administrators? [If so, probe for concrete examples.] 

iii.	 Do you have any suggestions for how the technical assistance could be improved? 

iv.	 Do you have any suggestions for other types of technical assistance that would be useful 

for you in your use of REAP funds to support professional development strategies for 

teachers or administrators in your school district? 

7d. Why did your school district choose to focus REAP funds on improving or expanding access to 

technology? 

a.	 What has been the role of REAP funds in supporting strategies to improve or expand access to 

technology in your school district? 

b.	 What other funds are you using to address access to technology and how are they used in 

combination with REAP funds? [The answer to this question should be limited to the actual use 

of REAP funds, not a general description of programs and strategies; therefore, probes should 

not suggest specific strategies, but rather prompt respondents to name their own strategies with 

enough detail to know what kind of strategy is being described, but not elaborate description 

of how each program/strategy works.] 

c.	 Has your school district received technical assistance in support of using REAP funds for 

strategies to improve or expand access to technology in your school district? From whom? 

[Probe for technical assistance providers indicated in Survey Q35 through Survey Q38: the U.S. 

Department of Education, the state, Regional Educational Laboratories, Comprehensive Centers, 

and other technical assistance providers.] 

i.	 What kind of technical assistance have you received? How helpful has it been? 

101 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ii.	 Did the assistance change the way you used REAP funds for strategies to improve or 

expand access to technology? [If so, probe for concrete examples.] 

iii.	 Do you have any suggestions for how the technical assistance could be improved? 

iv.	 Do you have any suggestions for other types of technical assistance that would be useful 

for you in your use of REAP funds to support strategies to improve or expand access to 

technology in your school district? 

7e. Why did your school district choose to focus REAP funds on addressing drug abuse and/or violence in 

your community? Is the emphasis more on drug abuse or violence? (“Both” is an acceptable 

answer.) 

a.	 What has been the role of REAP funds in supporting your school district in its strategies to 

address drug abuse and/or violence in your community? 

b.	 What other funds are you using to address drug abuse and/or violence in your community and 

how are they used in combination with REAP funds? [The answer to this question should be 

limited to the actual use of REAP funds, not a general description of programs and strategies; 

therefore, probes should not suggest specific strategies, but rather prompt respondents to name 

their own strategies with enough detail to know what kind of strategy is being described, but 

not elaborate description of how each program/strategy works.] 

c.	 Has your school district received technical assistance in support of using REAP funds for 

strategies to address drug abuse and/or violence in your community? From whom? [Probe for 

technical assistance providers indicated in Survey Q35 through Survey Q38: the U.S. Department 

of Education, the state, Regional Educational Laboratories, Comprehensive Centers, and other 

technical assistance providers.] 

i.	 What kind of technical assistance have you received? How helpful has it been? 

ii.	 Did the assistance change the way you used REAP funds to address drug abuse and/or 

violence in your community? [If so, probe for concrete examples.] 

iii.	 Do you have any suggestions for how the technical assistance could be improved? 

iv.	 Do you have any suggestions for other types of technical assistance that would be useful 

for you in your use of REAP funds to support your school district in its strategies to address 

drug abuse and/or violence in your community? 

7f. Why did your school district choose to focus REAP funds on addressing English language acquisition? 

a.	 What has been the role of REAP funds in supporting strategies to address English language 

acquisition in your school district? 

b.	 What other funds are you using to address English language acquisition and how are they used 

in combination with REAP funds? [The answer to this question should be limited to the actual use 

of REAP funds, not a general description of programs and strategies; therefore, probes should 

not suggest specific strategies, but rather prompt respondents to name their own strategies with 

enough detail to know what kind of strategy is being described, but not elaborate description 

of how each program/strategy works.] 

102 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

c.	 Has your school district received technical assistance in support of using REAP funds for 

strategies to address English language acquisition in your school district? From whom? [Probe 

for technical assistance providers indicated in Survey Q35 through Survey Q38: the U.S. 

Department of Education, the state, Regional Educational Laboratories, Comprehensive Centers, 

and other technical assistance providers.] 

i.	 What kind of technical assistance have you received? How helpful has it been? 

ii.	 Did the assistance change the way you used REAP funds to address English language 

acquisition? [If so, probe for concrete examples.] 

iii.	 Do you have any suggestions for how the technical assistance could be improved? 

iv.	 Do you have any suggestions for other types of technical assistance that would be useful 

for you in your use of REAP funds to support strategies to address English language 

acquisition in your school district? 

7g. Why did your school district choose to focus REAP funds on increasing parental involvement? 

a.	 What has been the role of REAP funds in supporting strategies to increase parental involvement 

in your school district? 

b.	 What other funds are you using to address parental involvement and how are they used in 

combination with REAP funds? [The answer to this question should be limited to the actual use 

of REAP funds, not a general description of programs and strategies; therefore, probes should 

not suggest specific strategies, but rather prompt respondents to name their own strategies with 

enough detail to know what kind of strategy is being described, but not elaborate description 

of how each program/strategy works.] 

c.	 Has your school district received technical assistance in support of using REAP funds for 

strategies to increase parental involvement in your school district? From whom? [Probe for 

technical assistance providers indicated in Survey Q35 through Survey Q38: the U.S. Department 

of Education, the state, Regional Educational Laboratories, Comprehensive Centers, and other 

technical assistance providers.] 

i.	 What kind of technical assistance have you received? How helpful has it been? 

ii.	 Did the assistance change the way you used REAP funds for strategies to increase parental 

involvement? [If so, probe for concrete examples.] 

iii.	 Do you have any suggestions for how the technical assistance could be improved? 

iv.	 Do you have any suggestions for other types of technical assistance that would be useful 

for you in your use of REAP funds to support strategies to increase parental involvement in 

your school district? 

8.	 Has your school district received any assistance to help you meet accounting or reporting 

requirements concerning your school district’s use of REAP funds, or on other aspects of 

administration? [If yes] From whom? [Probe for technical assistance providers indicated in Survey 

Q35 through Survey Q38: the U.S. Department of Education, the state, Regional Educational 

Laboratories, Comprehensive Centers, and other technical assistance providers.] 

a.	 How useful have you found this assistance to be? [Probe for concrete examples.] 

b.	 Did the assistance change the way you reported or addressed accounting requirements 

concerning your school district’s use of REAP funds? [If so, probe for concrete examples] 

103 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REAP-Flex [SRSA districts only] 

9.	 Now we want to talk with you about a provision under SRSA called REAP Flexibility. You may also 

know it as SRSA Flexibility, REAP-Flex, SRSA Flex, REAPing, or Flexing. 

a.	 How familiar are you with the REAP-Flex provision? [If respondent is not familiar with REAP-Flex, 

offer a brief description.] What is REAP-Flex called in your school district? [Use respondent’s 

preferred terminology going forward.] 

b.	 If respondent’s school district is currently using REAP-Flex (“Yes” to Survey Q27), ask: How are 

you using REAP-Flex in your school district? [Probe for details, including reasons for choice of 

particular federal Title programs they plan to supplement with Title IIA funds.] 

i.	 Has your school district received technical assistance regarding your use of REAP-Flex in the 

current school year? From whom? [Probe for technical assistance on whether to exercise 

REAP-Flex authority and how to use it.] 

ii.	 What kind of technical assistance has your school district received? How helpful has it 

been? How did it change your school district’s use of REAP-Flex? [Probe for concrete 

examples.] 

iii.	 Do you have any suggestions for how the technical assistance could be improved? Do you 

have any suggestions for other types of technical assistance that would be useful for you in 

deciding whether to use REAP-Flex or how to use it? 

c.	 If respondent’s school district is not currently using REAP-Flex (“No” to Survey Q27), ask: Did your 

school district receive technical assistance regarding whether it could use REAP-Flex or how to 

use it in the current school year? From whom? [Probe for technical assistance on whether to 

exercise REAP-Flex authority and how to use it.] 

i. What considerations factored into your school district’s decision not to use REAP-Flex? 

[Probe for any reasons indicated in Survey Q29] 

ii.	 Do you have any suggestions for how the technical assistance could be improved? Do you 

have any suggestions for other types of technical assistance that would be useful for your 

school district in deciding whether to use REAP-Flex or how to use it? 

d.	 Do you have any suggestions for changes in REAP-Flex that would make it easier to use? That 

would make your school district more likely to use it? 

Recommendations for Change 

10. How would you describe your school district’s overall satisfaction with the REAP program? How 

would you describe your school district’s overall satisfaction with the administration of the program 

[for SRSA grantees: “by the U.S. Dept. of Education REAP office”; for RLIS subgrantees: “by your 

state”]? 

104 
 

 

 

 

11. What recommendations do you have to improve the REAP program? Probe for 

•	 eligibility process? 

•	 formula used to allocate funds? [assuming respondent knows at least something about the 

allocation formulas] 

•	 allowable (for RLIS and SRSA) or authorized (for SRSA using Flex) uses of funds? 

12. What recommendations do you have to improve the administration of the program [for SRSA, ask 

about national level administration; for RLIS, ask about state-level administration]? Probe for timing 

of eligibility notification, timing of fund distribution. 

105 
106 
107

APPENDIX F: Standard Error Tables and Other 

Supporting Data 

This appendix includes full estimates and standard errors for all data based on the district survey quoted 

in the body of the report. Data based on state coordinator interviews are not included here, because 

they represent the universe of respondents and therefore do not have standard errors.

Exhibit F-1. Item-level response rates for district REAP coordinator surveys 

Item-level response 

rate

Number of questions

on the SRSA coordinator survey

Number of questions

on the RLIS coordinator survey

95% or higher 117 56

90–95% 22 16

80–89% 16 7

Note: This table incorporates adjusted response rates due to skip patterns.

Exhibit F-2. Supporting data for district REAP coordinator experience, 

quoted in Chapter 1. Introduction

Years of Experience a

Mean

(Standard error)

6.6

(0.27) a 950 potential district survey respondents. 

Source: District Survey, Question 2 (n = 893). 

Exhibit F-3. Supporting data for Respondent roles, quoted in Chapter 1. Introduction

SRSA a RLIS b

Percentage 

of districts

SE Percentage 

of districts

SE

Superintendent 64 2.0 27 2.8

General administrator for all federal programs 14 1.5 40 3.5

Financial officer 27 1.9 10 1.8

School principal 17 1.6 6 1.6

Administrator for individual federal programs 8 1.2 19 2.8

Instructional program coordinator 4 0.8 7 1.8

Teacher 3 0.8 0 0.2

Assistant superintendent 1 0.3 4 1.2

Administrative assistant, clerk, or secretary 1 0.3 0 0.01

Technology director 0 0.2 1 0.7

Other 3 0.7 6 1.7 a 634 potential SRSA district survey respondents; b 316 potential RLIS district survey respondents.

Note: Percentages sum to more than 100 in each column because respondents could select all options that applied. 

Source: District Survey, Question 1 (n = 946).
108

Exhibit F-4. Supporting data for number of roles, quoted in Chapter 1. Introduction

Mean SE

SRSA 1.5 0.05

RLIS 1.2 0.04 a 634 potential SRSA district survey respondents; b 316 potential RLIS district survey respondents.

Source: District Survey, Question 1 (n = 630 SRSA; 316 RLIS districts).

Exhibit F-5. Supporting data for Exhibit 7. Percentage of SRSA districts that reported their state encouraged, 

required, or allowed them to verify average daily attendance data before the state submitted data 

to the Department

Percentage of SRSA School Districtsa SE

Required to verify 32 2.0

Encouraged to verify 3 0.8

Allowed to verify 6 1.1

No opportunity to verify 12 1.4

Don't know 46 2.1 a 634 potential SRSA district survey respondents.

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

Source: District Survey, Question 3 (n = 633)

Exhibit F-6. Supporting data for notification of eligibility, quoted in Chapter 2. State Role in Eligibility and Award 

Process for REAP

SRSA RLIS 

Percentage of 

districtsa SE n

Percentage of 

districtsb SE n

Was notified by the U.S. Department of 

Education

72 2.0 594 NA

Checked the eligibility spreadsheet posted 

on the Department website

38 2.2 560 21 2.2 268

Was notified by my state 38 2.2 561 87 2.2 301

Checked my state’s website 28 2.1 547 52 3.9 269

Other 9 1.5 411 7 2.1 217 a 634 potential SRSA district survey respondents; b 316 potential RLIS respondents

Note: Percentages sum to more than 100 because respondents could select all options that applied.

Source: District Survey, Question 4
109

Exhibit F-7. Supporting data for notification of award amounts, quoted in Chapter 2. State Role in Eligibility and 

Award Process for REAP

SRSA RLIS

Percentage of 

districtsa SE n

Percentage of 

districtsb SE n

Was notified by the U.S. Department of 

Education 

72 2.0 593 NA

Checked the U.S. Department of 

Education’s G5 grants management 

system

49 2.3 563 NA

Checked the SRSA grant award 

spreadsheet for my state on the U.S. 

Department of Education website

36 2.2 565 NA

Was notified by my state 35 2.2 567 87 2.2 300

Checked my state’s website 24 1.9 561 52 3.8 276

Calculated the amount using a funding 

formula

5 1.0 542 6 1.8 255

Other 4 1.0 630 3 1.3 219 a 634 potential SRSA district survey respondents; b 316 potential RLIS respondents

Note: Percentages sum to more than 100 because respondents could select all options that applied.

Source: District Survey, Question 5

Exhibit F-8. Supporting data for assistance on eligibility and awards, quoted in Chapter 2. State Role in Eligibility 

and Award Process for REAP

SRSAa RLISb

Assistance from any source on...

Percentage

of districts SE n 

Percentage

of districts SE n 

Finding out eligibility 58 2.1 624 71 3.3 314

Finding out award amounts 61 2.1 624 74 3.1 314 a 634 potential SRSA district survey respondents that knew the timeline for eligibility and awards in their district; b 316 potential RLIS district 

survey respondents

Source: District Survey, Question 31.

Exhibit F-9. Supporting data for technical assistance on eligibility and awards for SRSA districts, quoted in 

Chapter 2. State Role in Eligibility and Award Process for REAP

Percentage of SRSA Districtsa

(Standard errors are in parentheses)

From my state

From the U.S. 

Department of 

Education

From a REL 

or RCC

From another 

technical 

assistance provider n

Finding out if we are 

eligible for SRSA funds

29

(1.9)

31

(2.0)

2

(0.5)

5

(0.9)

627

Finding out the amount 

of our award

28

(1.9)

37

(2.1)

2

(0.5)

4

(0.8)

626

a 634 potential SRSA district survey respondents.

Note: Percentages sum to more or less than 100 in each row because respondents could select all options that applied. 

Source: District Survey, Question 31.
110

Exhibit F-10. Supporting data for technical assistance on eligibility and awards for RLIS districts, quoted in 

Chapter 2. State Role in Eligibility and Award Process for REAP

Percentage of RLIS Districtsa 

(Standard errors are in parentheses)

From my state

From the U.S. 

Department of 

Education 

From a REL 

or RCC

From another 

technical 

assistance provider

n 

Finding out if we are 

eligible for RLIS funds

66

(3.3)

2 

(1.1)

1 

(0.9)

4 

(1.6)

315

Finding out the amount of 

our award

70

(3.2)

3 

(1.4)

1 

(0.9)

3 314

(1.5) 

 

a 316 potential RLIS district survey respondents.

Note: Percentages sum to more or less than 100 in each row because respondents could select all options that applied.

Source: District Survey, Question 31.

 

 

Exhibit F-11. Supporting data for challenge in finding out about eligibility and award amounts for SRSA districts, 

quoted in Chapter 2. State Role in Eligibility and Award Process for REAP

Percentage of SRSA Districtsa 

(Standard errors are in parentheses)

Not at all

To a minimal 

extent

To a moderate 

extent

To a great 

extent n 

Finding out if we are eligible for 

RLIS funds

59

(2.1)

27

(1.9)

10

(1.3)

4 

(0.8

628

Finding out the amount of our 

award 

53

(2.2)

29

(2.0)

13

(1.4)

5 

(1.0)

629

a 634 potential SRSA district survey respondents.

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

Source: District Survey, Question 19.
111

Exhibit F-12. Supporting data for challenge in finding out about eligibility and award amounts for RLIS districts, 

quoted in Chapter 2. State Role in Eligibility and Award Process for REAP

Percentage of RLIS Districtsa 

(Standard errors are in parentheses)

Not at all

To a minimal 

extent

To a moderate 

extent

To a great 

extent n 

Finding out if we are eligible for 

RLIS funds

54

(3.6)

29

(3.3)

10

(1.9)

7 

(1.8)

311

Finding out the amount of our 

award 

45

(3.6)

33

(3.4)

14

(2.4)

8 

(2.0)

312

a 316 potential RLIS district survey respondents.

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

Source: District Survey, Question 19.

Exhibit F-13. Supporting data for Exhibit 10. Percentage of SRSA and RLIS districts reporting that they had 

finished budget planning before they knew their eligibility or award amount for REAP

SRSAa RLISb

Percentage of 

districts SE n 

Percentage of 

districts SE n 

Finished budget planning before

eligibility or award notification

36 2.3 470 27 3.6 249

Finished budget planning after 

eligibility but before award 

notification

8 1.3 458 8 2.2 247

Finished budget planning after both 

eligibility and award notification

3956 2.4 458 65 3.8 247

a 479 and 540 potential SRSA district survey respondents that knew the timeline for eligibility and awards in their district; b 260 and 272 

potential RLIS district survey respondents that knew the timeline for eligibility and awards in their district

Source: District Survey, Question 6.

Exhibit F-14. Supporting data for months between notification and completion of budget planning, quoted in 

Chapter 2. State Role in Eligibility and Award Process for REAP

SRSAa RLISb

Months between completion of budget 

planning and... 

Percentage

of districts SE n 

Percentage of 

districts SE n 

Knew eligibility 2.0 0.13 254 1.7 0.18 128

Knew amount of grant 2.1 0.12 287 1.8 0.18 149 a 479 and 540 potential SRSA district survey respondents that knew the timeline for eligibility and awards in their district; b 260 and 272 

potential RLIS district survey respondents that knew the timeline for eligibility and awards in their district

Source: District Survey, Question 6.
112

Exhibit F-15. Supporting data for proportion of districts conducting a formal needs assessment, quoted in 

Chapter 3. District Use of REAP Funds

Percentage of SRSA 

Districts a

SE Percentage of 

RLIS Districts b

SE

Yes 44 2.1 66 3.0

No 50 2.1 27 2.8

Don’t know 7 1.0 7 1.6

a 634 potential SRSA district survey respondents; 316 potential RLIS survey respondents

Source: District Survey, Question 7 (n = 634 SRSA; 315 RLIS districts)

Exhibit F-16. Supporting data for Exhibit 11. Percentage of various types of district personnel involved in 

deciding how to spend SRSA and RLIS funds

SRSAa RLISb

Percentage 

of Districts SE n

Percentage 

of Districts SE n

School board 56 2.1 606 40 3.7 285

Superintendent 93 1.0 628 92 2.0 310

School principal(s) 82 1.7 614 90 2.0 306

Financial officer 77 1.8 611 77 3.1 300

General administrator for all federal programs 57 2.2 589 77 2.8 296

Administrator for individual federal programs 45 2.2 582 57 3.8 281

Administrator assigned specifically to manage REAP 47 2.2 580 49 3.7 279

Leadership team 50 2.2 596 67 3.4 293

Other instructional personnel (for example, 

teachers or program coordinators) 55 2.2 599 66 3.5 289

Other 11 1.6 462 18 3.2 242 a 634 potential SRSA district survey respondents; b

316 potential RLIS district survey respondents.

Note: Percentages sum to more than 100 because respondents could select all options that applied. 

Source: District Survey, Question 8.
113

Exhibit F-17. Supporting data for Exhibit 12. Percentage of SRSA and RLIS districts that reported various uses for 

their REAP funds, 2014–15

SRSAa RLIS b

Percentage 

of Districts SE n

Percentage of 

Districts SE n

Improving or expanding access to 

technology

71 1.9 617 71 3.2 304

Providing professional development for 

teachers or administrators

45 2.1 612 58 3.5 298

Improving teacher retention and/or 

recruitment

25 1.9 612 23 3.1 294

Increasing parental involvement 22 1.8 602 30 3.5 293

Addressing English language acquisition 11 1.4 601 18 3.0 290

Addressing drug abuse and/or violence in 

your community

8 1.2 600 9 1.9 291

Improving academic achievement through 

activities other than those listed above.

39 2.1 603 42 3.7 295

a 634 potential SRSA district survey respondents; b XXX potential RLIS district survey respondents

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. 

Source: District Survey, Question 11.

Exhibit F-18. Supporting data for Percentage of Districts that Combine SRSA or RLIS funds with other funds, 

quoted in Chapter 3. District Use of REAP Funds

SRSA RLIS

Percentage of 

Districtsa SE n

Percentage 

of Districtsb SE n

Any source 65 2.1 631 66 3.4 314

U.S. Department of Education 51 2.2 622 58 3.5 310

E-Rate 33 2.1 611 23 3.0 395

U.S. Department of Agriculture 6 1.0 590 5 1.5 287

State 3 0.7 631 2 0.9 316

Local 1 0.3 631 1 0.4 314

Nonprofit 0.1 0.1 631 1 0.8 314 a 634 potential SRSA district survey respondents; 316 potential RLIS district survey respondents.

Note: Percentages sum to more than 100 because respondents could select all options that applied. State, Local, and Nonprofit were write-in 

responses.

Source: District Survey, Question 16.

Exhibit F-19. Supporting data for proportion of districts targeting SRSA or RLIS funds to particular subgroups, 

quoted in Chapter 3. District Use of REAP Funds

Percentage of SRSA 

Districts a SE

Percentage of 

RLIS Districts b SE

Yes 54 2.1 66 3.4

No 46 2.1 34 3.4

a 634 potential SRSA district survey respondents; 316 potential RLIS survey respondents

Source: District Survey, Question 7 (n = 634 SRSA; 315 RLIS districts)
114

Exhibit F-20. Supporting data for Exhibit 13. Percentage of SRSA and RLIS districts that reported targeting REAP 

funds to particular student groups

SRSAa RLIS b

Percentage of 

School Districts SE

Percentage of School 

Districts SE

Low-performing students 87 2.0 86 3.1

Low-income students 70 2.7 78 3.6

Students with disabilities 40 2.8 28 4.1

Male students 34 2.8 26 4.1

Female students 33 2.7 26 4.1

English language learners 29 2.6 33 4.3

Hispanic students 25 2.5 21 3.8

White students 27 2.6 19 3.7

Students of two or more races 24 2.5 18 3.6

Black or African American students 18 2.2 19 3.8

American Indian/Alaska Native students 19 2.3 14 3.2

Asian students 10 1.8 10 2.9

Hawaiian/Pacific Islander students 9 1.7 10 2.9 a 342 potential SRSA district survey respondents; b

204 potential RLIS district survey respondents.

Note: Percentages sum to more than 100 because respondents could select all options that applied. 

Source: District Survey, Question 14 (n = 342 SRSA districts; 204 RLIS districts).

Exhibit F-21. Supporting data for proportion reporting that REAP funds enable their school district to better 

meet its goals, quoted in Chapter 3. District Use of REAP Funds

SRSAa RLIS b

Percentage of 

School Districts SE

Percentage of School 

Districts SE

To a great extent 56 2.1 52 3.6

To a moderate extent 33 2.0 40 3.5

To a minimal extent 10 1.3 8 1.7

Not at all 0 0.0 0 0.0 a 634 potential SRSA district survey respondents; b 316 potential RLIS district survey respondents.

Note: Percentages sum to more than 100 because respondents could select all options that applied. 

Source: District Survey, Question 15 (n = 630 SRSA districts; 315 RLIS districts).

Exhibit F-22. Supporting data for proportion receiving assistance on using funds from any source, quoted in 

Chapter 3. District Use of REAP Funds

Percentage of school districts SE

SRSA 59 2.1

RLIS 77 2.9 a 634 potential SRSA district survey respondents; b 316 potential RLIS district survey respondents.

Note: Percentages sum to more than 100 in each column because respondents could select all options that applied. 

Source: District Survey, Question 1 (n = 625 SRSA; 315 RLIS districts).
115

Exhibit F-23. Supporting data for Exhibit 14. The source of the assistance for SRSA and RLIS districts receiving 

technical assistance

Percentage of SRSA Districts a

(Standard errors are in parentheses)

From my 

state

From the U.S. 

Department 

of Education

From a REL 

or RCCb

From another 

technical 

assistance 

provider n

Understanding allowable uses of funds 29 25 2 7 629

(1.9) (1.9) (0.6) (1.0)

Using the funds for activities aligned 

with our goals

23 15 1 6 624

(1.8) (1.6) (0.5) (0.9)

Understanding how to effectively 

coordinate REAP funds with other 

funding sources

20 12 2 6 625

(1.8) (1.4) (0.5) (0.9)

Understanding the accounting 

requirements for the funds 

23 17 2 6 626

(1.8) (1.7) (0.5) (1.0)

Understanding the reporting 

requirements for the funds 

22 17 2 6 627

(1.8) (1.7) (0.5) (1.0)

a 634 potential SRSA district survey respondents.

b REL = Regional Educational Laboratory; RCC = Regional Comprehensive Center

Note: Percentages sum to more or less than 100 in each row because respondents could select all options that applied.

Source: District Survey, Question 31.

Exhibit F-24. Supporting data for percentage of SRSA grantees who found the assistance they received from their 

state varying degrees of helpful, quoted in Chapter 3. District Use of REAP Funds

Percentage of SRSA Districts a

(Standard errors are in parentheses)

To a 

great 

extent

To a 

moderate 

extent

To a 

minimal 

extent Not at all n

Potential 

Respondents

Understanding allowable uses of funds 33

(3.8)

46

(4.2)

20

(3.3)

2 165

(1.1)

167

Using the funds for activities aligned with 

our goals

26

(4.1)

49

(4.7)

22

(4.0)

3

(1.7)

129 131

Understanding how to effectively 

coordinate SRSA funds with other 

funding sources

25

(4.4)

53

(5.0)

19

(4.0)

3

(1.8)

118 118

Understanding the accounting 

requirements for the funds 

33

(4.5)

43

(4.5)

21

(3.9)

3

(1.6)

130 132

Understanding the reporting 

requirements for the funds 

27

(4.2)

50

(4.7)

20

(3.6)

3

(1.6)

132 134

a Potential respondents were the SRSA grantee districts reporting receiving technical assistance from the Department on each topic, the 

number shown in the far right column.

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

Source: District Survey, Question 35.
116

Exhibit F-25. Supporting data for percentage of RLIS subgrantees who found the assistance they received from 

their state varying degrees of helpful, quoted in Chapter 5. Grantee Recommendations for 

Improving REAP

Percentage of SRSA Districts a

(Standard errors are in parentheses)

To a 

great 

extent

To a 

moderate 

extent

To a 

minimal 

extent Not at all n

Potential 

Respondents

Understanding allowable uses of funds 48

(4.3)

33

(4.1)

17

(3.2)

2

(1.2)

209 209

Using the funds for activities aligned 

with our goals

49

(4.7)

36

(4.7)

14

(3.4)

1

(0.8)

162 162

Understanding how to effectively 

coordinate SRSA funds with other 

funding sources

50

(5.3)

31

(4.8)

17

(4.1)

1

(1.0)

136 137

Understanding the accounting 

requirements for the funds 

51

(4.8)

34

(4.5)

14

(3.2)

2

(1.3)

168 169

Understanding the reporting 

requirements for the funds 

48

(4.8)

34

(4.6)

16

(3.3)

2

(1.3)

170 170

a Potential respondents were the SRSA grantee districts reporting receiving technical assistance from the Department on each topic, the 

number shown in the far right column.

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

Source: District Survey, Question 35.

Exhibit F-26. Supporting data for proportion reporting minimal to no challenge in using REAP funds, quoted in 

Chapter 3. District Use of REAP Funds

Mean SE

SRSA 64 2.1

RLIS 70 3.4 a 624 potential SRSA district survey respondents; b 305 potential RLIS district survey respondents.

Note: Percentages sum to more than 100 in each column because respondents could select all options that applied. 

Source: District Survey, Question 1 (n = 625 SRSA; 315 RLIS districts).
117

Exhibit F-27. Supporting data for Exhibit 15. Percentage of SRSA districts that reported various levels of 

challenge in using SRSA funds 

Percentage of SRSA Districts a

(Standard errors are in parentheses)

Not at all

To a minimal 

extent

To a moderate 

extent

To a great 

extent n

Understanding allowable uses of funds 40 37 18 6 628

(2.1) (2.1) (1.7) (1.0)

Using the funds for activities aligned with 

our goals

56 30 10 4 625

(2.2) (2.0) (1.3) (0.8)

Understanding how to effectively 

coordinate SRSA funds with other funding 

sources

46 33 16 4 629

(2.2) (2.1) (1.6) (0.9)

Understanding the accounting 

requirements for the funds 

45 34 16 5 629

(2.1) (2.1) (1.6) (0.9)

Understanding the reporting 

requirements for the funds 

43 33 18 5 629

(2.1) (2.0) (1.7) (0.9)

Turnover in school district leadership 62 20 10 5 629

(2.1) (1.7) (1.4) (0.9) a 634 potential SRSA survey respondents.

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 because rounding.

Source: District Survey, Question 29 and 19.

Exhibit F-28. Supporting data for Exhibit 16. Percentage of SRSA district coordinators who reported hearing 

about REAP-Flex from various sources 

Percentage 

of SRSA 

districts a SE n

Information or technical assistance provided by your state 59 2.5 447

U.S. Department of Education website or publication 49 2.7 450

Colleague 40 2.6 449

Other technical assistance provider 24 2.3 446

Professional organization 20 2.2 440

Direct communication with U.S. Department of Education staff 16 2.1 438

Regional Educational Laboratory or Comprehensive Center 3 0.9 437

Other 7 1.5 369 a Potential respondents were 470 SRSA grantees who reported prior awareness of REAP-Flex in Question 20. 

Note: Percentages sum to more than 100 because respondents could select all options that applied.

Source: District Survey, Question 21.
118

Exhibit F-29. Supporting data for Exhibit 17. Usefulness of information sources to coordinators in deciding 

whether to use REAP-Flex

Percentage of SRSA districts a

(Standard errors are in parentheses)

n

Not at all 

useful

Somewhat 

useful

Very 

useful

No info 

provided

U.S. Department of Education website or 

publication

9 32 16 43 573

(1.3) (2.1) (1.7) (2.2)

Direct communication with U.S. Department of 

Education staff

10 15 10 65 570

(1.3) (1.7) (1.4) (2.2)

Information or technical assistance provided by 

your state

4 27 26 43 570

(0.9) (2.0) (1.9) (2.1)

Regional Educational Laboratory or Comprehensive 

Center

12 9 2 77 567

(1.5) (1.4) (0.7) (2.0)

Other technical assistance provider 10 14 10 66 569

(1.3) (1.6) (1.3) (2.1)

Professional organization 9 16 7 68 569

(1.3) (1.7) (1.1) (2.1)

Colleague 8 18 15 58 570

(1.2) (1.8) (1.6) (2.2)

Other 9 2 2 86 474

(1.5) (0.7) (0.7) (1.7) a 587 potential SRSA district survey respondents who did not reply “I do not know what this means” to Q23.

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

Source: District Survey, Question 24.

Exhibit F-30. Supporting data for percentage of RLIS districts interested in a provision like REAP-Flex, reported in 

the REAP-Flex section

Percentage of RLIS districtsa SE

To a great extent 60 3.4

To a moderate extent 32 3.4

To a minimal extent 5 1.3

Not at all 1 0.8

Don't know 2 0.8 a 316 potential RLIS survey respondents. 

Source: District Survey, Question 18 (n = 316)
119

Exhibit F-31. Supporting data for Exhibit 18. SRSA district coordinators reporting their district used REAP-Flex in 

2014–15

Percentage of SRSA districtsa SE

Yes 46 2.1

No 35 2.0

Don't know 11 1.3

Don't know what this means 8 1.1 a 634 potential SRSA district survey respondents.

Source: District Survey, Question 23 (n = 633)

Exhibit F-32. Supporting data for Exhibit 19. SRSA district coordinators

Percentage of SRSA districts 

exercising REAP-Flexa 

(Standard errors are in parentheses)

Yes No Don't 

Know n 

Maintain a stable level of effort for ongoing activities that have 

been affected by budgetary constraints

82

(2.6)

14

(2.4)

4

(1.3)

285

Target particular student groups or outcomes 52

(3.3)

42

(3.3)

5

(1.6)

284

Increase the amount of federal funds available for high-priority 

programs 

51

(3.4)

46

(3.4)

3

(1.2)

285

Initiate new activities that would not have been possible 

without exercising REAP-Flex

43

(3.3)

53

(3.4)

5

(1.5)

282

a Potential respondents were the 290 district survey respondents that reported exercising REAP-Flex.

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

Source: District Survey, Question 26.

Exhibit F-33. Supporting data for Exhibit 20. ESEA programs for which REAP-Flex districts used their Title II, 

Part A funds

 

Percentage of SRSA districts exercising 

REAP-Flexa 

(Standard errors are in parentheses)

Yes No Don't Know n

Title I, Part A: Improving the Achievement of Disadvantaged 

Children

67 29 4 285

(3.2) (3.1) (1.3) 

Title II, Part D: Educational Technology State Grants 38 57 5 286

(3.2) (3.3) (1.5) 

Title III: Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient 

and Immigrant Students

8 88 5 280

(1.7) (2.2) (1.5) 

Title IV, Part A: Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 

Communities

11 84 6 282

(2.0) (2.4) (1.6) 

Title IV, Part B: 21st-Century Community Learning Centers 6 88 5 280

(1.5) (2.1) (1.6) 

Title V, Part A: State Grants for Innovative Programs 20 75 5 282

(2.6) (2.9) (1.5) a Potential respondents were the 290 district survey respondents that reported exercising REAP-Flex. 

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

Source: District Survey, Question 27.
120

Exhibit F-34. Supporting data for Exhibit 21. Factors contributing to SRSA districts’ decisions not to use REAP-Flex 

Percentage 

of SRSA 

districtsa SE n

We were not aware of the REAP-Flex option. 32 3.9 220

We did not have enough information about REAP-Flex to make an informed 

decision. 33 3.9 219

My school district used Transferabilityb instead of REAP-Flex. 8 2.4 219

The amount of funds in applicable categories would have been too small to 

effectively carry out desired activities even after exercising the REAP-Flex option. 34 3.6 221

We thought the accounting requirements associated with REAP-Flex would have 

been burdensome. 15 2.9 219

Other 4 1.4 166 a Potential respondents were the 223 SRSA district survey respondents that reported not using REAP-Flex. b Transferability is separate from REAP-Flex; it allows states and school districts to transfer a portion of the funds that they receive under 

certain federal programs to other programs. All transferred funds are subject to the requirements of the program to which they are 

transferred.

Note: Percentages sum to more than 100 because respondents could select all options that applied.

Source: District Survey, Question 25.

Exhibit F-35. Supporting data for Exhibit 22. SRSA district coordinators’ reports of how changes to REAP-Flex 

would affect their interest in using the option

 

Percentage of SRSA districts NOT using REAP-Flexa 

(Standard errors are in parentheses)

Much 

lower

Somewhat 

lower

About the 

same

Somewhat 

higher

Much 

higher n

If additional federal programs were 

funded or prohibited programs made 

allowable sources for REAP-Flex 

4 5 54 27 11 223

(1.6) (1.7) (3.8) (3.4) (2.4) 

If accounting requirements were 

relaxed or assistance were offered to 

maintain necessary records

5 3 44 35 13 223

(1.8) (1.3) (3.9) (3.7) (2.6) 

If there were more information on 

how to use REAP-Flex

5 3 33 42 17 223

(1.6) (1.3) (3.6) (3.8) (2.9) 

Other 35 4 47 5 8 143

(4.8) (2.1) (4.9) (2.3) (2.9) a Potential respondents were the 223 SRSA district survey respondents that reported not using REAP-Flex.

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

Source: District Survey, Question 28.
121

Exhibit F-36. Supporting data for REAP program satisfaction, quoted in Chapter 5. Grantee Recommendations for 

Improving REAP

SRSAa RLISb

Percentage SE Percentage SE

Not satisfied 1 0.5 0 0.3

Minimally satisfied 6 1.0 3 1.3

Moderately satisfied 41 2.1 49 3.6

Highly satisfied 52 2.2 47 3.6 a 634 potential SRSA district survey respondents; b 316 potential RLIS district survey respondents.

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. 

Source: District Survey, Question 38 (n = 944)

Exhibit F-37. Supporting data for percentage of REAP districts that need assistance to administer their funds, 

quoted in Chapter 5. Grantee Recommendations for Improving REAP

Percentage of SRSA districtsa SE Percentage of RLIS districtsb SE

Not at all 41 2.1 44 3.6

To a minimal extent 45 2.1 50 3.6

To a moderate extent 11 1.4 5 1.5

To a great extent 3 0.7 2 1.2 a 634 potential SRSA district survey respondents; b 316 potential RLIS district survey respondents

Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding.

Source: District Survey, Question 30 (n = 633 SRSA; 316 RLIS districts)


Case Studies of the Implementation and Use of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 122

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote
 

student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness
 

by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.
 

www.ed.gov