U.S. Department of Education

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Policy and Program Studies Service

Results in Brief:

Study of Experiences and Needs of Rural Education Achievement Program Grantees 

December 2016

Rural schools often face a variety of unique challenges, such as geographic isolation, shortages of qualified educators, limited access 

to rigorous classes and enrichment activities to prepare students for college, and underdeveloped infrastructure. To help rural 

school districts address these challenges, in 2001 Congress established the Rural Education Achievement Program (REAP) which 

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

Of the two programs, SRSA is designed for smaller and more isolated districts, and it provides funding and a flexibility authority 

known as REAP-Flex. REAP-Flex allows SRSA-eligible districts to use specific Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) formula 

funds to support local activities for which they are allowed to spend their REAP funding to assist them in addressing local needs 

more effectively. RLIS serves rural districts that are generally slightly larger but have substantial concentrations of poverty, and it 

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

a statutory formula, while it provides RLIS formula allocations to state education agencies, which in turn make subgrants to eligible 

districts by formula or by competition. This study examined state and district practices and perspectives regarding the REAP program 

based on data collected in 2015. 

STUDY QUESTIONS

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? 

STUDY DESIGN

The study included state telephone interviews, a survey of a 

nationally representative sample of districts, and follow-up 

telephone interviews with a subsample of the districts that 

completed their surveys. Interviews were conducted with 

state REAP coordinators in all 47 states that reported districts 

using REAP funds. The district sample included 669 SRSA 

grantees and 336 RLIS subgrantees; the combined response 

rate for the district surveys was 95 percent (634 SRSA and 

316 RLIS district coordinators). District follow-up phone 

interviews were completed with 24 district coordinators (18 

SRSA and six RLIS). Data collection took place between March 

and June 2015. 

This study was conducted prior to the passage of the Every 

Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015. Therefore, the findings 

reflect REAP as authorized under the ESEA, as amended by 

the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. They do not represent 

implementation under the ESEA as amended by the ESSA. 

Highlights 

• 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 authority; of these, 82 percent used 

it to maintain a stable level of funding for ongoing 

activities in 2014-15. 

• 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. We note that some districts and states 

made recommendations to requirements that are set by 

statute and therefore are beyond the authority of the 

Department to alter. 
STATE ROLE IN THE REAP ELIGIBILITY AND 

AWARD PROCESS

Nearly all states with REAP districts in the 2014–15 school 

year reported that they reviewed the Department-provided 

eligibility data for accuracy and/or provided additional data. 

Forty-three of 47 states reported reviewing the Departmentprovided data for accuracy. All 47 states reported providing 

additional data: 37 states reported using only state databases 

to provide ADA data to the Department, five states obtained 

this information from districts, and two from a combination 

of district and state sources. Three coordinators reported 

that they had submitted the data, but were not directly 

responsible for obtaining them and did not know the source. 

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 states with funded RLIS districts, four had only one 

eligible district and awarded all of their funds to that district. 

Twenty-eight states based their formula entirely on ADA, 

three states used both ADA and poverty data, and two states 

used only poverty data. Six state REAP coordinators were not 

directly responsible for administering the formula, and did 

not know which data were used to determine RLIS subgrants. 

Although the majority of district and state REAP 

coordinators did not experience any challenges in the 

eligibility or award 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. However, two-fifths of REAP district 

coordinators reported they had finished their budget 

planning before they knew the amount of their award

(44 percent for SRSA and 35 percent for RLIS). Six state 

coordinators noted challenges answering SRSA districts’ 

questions about the federal eligibility determination process. 

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 

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 in combination with E-rate. Similarly, 58 

percent of RLIS district coordinators reported using REAP 

funds in combination with other funds from the Department, 

and 23 percent 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, most commonly low-performing 

students, low-income students, students with disabilities, and 

English learners. 

Percentages of SRSA and RLIS districts targeting REAP funds to 

various student groups 

SRSA RLIS 

Low-performing students 87% 86% 

Students from low-income families 70% 78% 

Students with disabilities 40% 28% 

English learners 29% 33% 

REAP FLEXIBILITY

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 ongoing activities. Sixty-seven percent of 

SRSA district coordinators whose districts exercised 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 information about the 

provision as reasons for not using the option. 

In districts that did not exercise their REAP-Flex authority, 32 

percent of coordinators reported they were not aware of the 

option, and 33 percent said they did not have enough 

information to make an informed decision about whether or 

not to use it. 

GRANTEE RECOMMENDATIONS 

Districts and states had recommendations for improvement 

to the REAP program in three categories. 

• Grantees recommended that the Department accelerate

the eligibility and award timeline so that it aligns more 

closely with other ESEA funding and their own budget 

cycles. 

• Both state and district REAP coordinators wanted more 

information about the program, particularly the REAP-Flex 

provision and allowable uses for REAP funds. 

• State coordinators suggested changes to certain eligibility 

criteria, such as revising the rural locale codes used in 

eligibility determination and flexibility in the measures 

used to determine poverty rates. Such statutory 

provisions are beyond the authority of the Department to 

address.