Prior to the establishment of IES, federal education research was carried out by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, a federal agency that—according to observers both within and outside the federal government—was challenged by frequent leadership changes, competing interests, and lack of a focused mission. The 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) made numerous references to the use of research-based evidence in educational decision making and federal education programs. With its enactment later in 2002, ESRA established IES, an arm of the Department of Education dedicated to the improvement of federal education research, statistics, evaluation, information, and dissemination. IES’s mission is “to provide national leadership in expanding fundamental knowledge and understanding of education from early childhood through postsecondary study, in order to provide parents, educators, students, researchers, policymakers, and the general public with reliable information about (1) the condition and progress of education in the United States, including early childhood education; (2) educational practices that support learning and improve academic achievement and access to educational opportunities for all students; and (3) the effectiveness of Federal and other education programs.” Furthermore, in carrying out its mission, ESRA calls upon IES to “compile statistics, develop products, and conduct research, evaluations, and wide dissemination activities in areas of demonstrated national need.” ESRA authorizes IES to conduct and support many different types of research and evaluations in support of its mission. Specifically, ESRA contains several key provisions related to the management, core functions, and processes of IES: all research conducted by IES is to use scientifically based research standards that include, where appropriate, making claims of causal relationships only in random assignment experiments; education evaluations conducted by IES are to employ experimental designs using random assignment, when feasible; all research, statistics, and evaluation reports conducted by or supported through IES must be subjected to rigorous peer review before being published or otherwise made available to the public; the Director of IES will be appointed by the President, by and with consent of the Senate, for a 6-year term and will propose the Institute’s overall research priorities and report biennially to Congress and others on the Institute’s activities, among other duties; and a board of directors is established—the NBES—whose duties include, among other things, (1) advising and consulting with the Director of IES regarding its policies and approving the Director’s overall research priorities, (2) reviewing and approving procedures for peer review, and (3) reviewing the work of IES to ensure the consistency of scientifically valid research. All of IES’s work is carried out by four Centers, created by law, that exist within IES. See table 1 for more information on these Centers and their key activities. Education administers programs that support education research and technical assistance through grants and contracts involving several research groups—the RELs and R & D Centers within IES and the Comprehensive Centers within OESE (see fig. 1). The National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEERA) administers the REL program, a network of 10 regional entities that conduct applied research; develop and disseminate research and products; and conduct technical assistance and other activities to support the needs of state and local educational agencies in their region. The RELs were first established in 1965 under Title IV of ESEA with the broad goal of supporting general educational improvement efforts in their regions. Since IES was created and began to administer the REL program, the RELs have completed two contract cycles, and the current RELs were launched in 2012 under new 5-year contracts. ESRA also includes specific requirements for the administration of National R & D Centers, which are designed to address areas of national need and each of which addresses at least one of the broad research topics outlined in the law. R & D Centers are also responsible for the production of rigorous evidence and dissemination of products that provide practical solutions to important education problems in the United States. Each R & D Center is funded for no more than 5 years, and in fiscal year 2013, the National Center for Education Research (NCER) and the National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER) administered 18 R & D Centers in total. The Comprehensive Centers Program is a network of 22 technical assistance grantees that help to increase the capacity of state educational agencies (SEA) to assist districts and schools in meeting student achievement goals. Established in 1994, Comprehensive Centers provide services primarily to SEAs to enable them to assist school districts and schools, especially low-performing schools. Comprehensive Centers provide training and technical assistance in (1) the implementation and administration of programs authorized under ESEA and (2) the use of research-based information and strategies. Selected Comprehensive Centers focus on specific content areas and produce research-based information and products for use by SEAs. In addition to IES, other entities conduct education-related research and evaluations, and ESRA includes general requirements for the Director of IES to coordinate its research and evaluation work with these entities, both within Education and across the rest of the federal government. Within Education, the Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development (OPEPD) conducts analyses and program evaluations on behalf of the department. Other federal agencies, such as NSF and NICHD—part of the National Institutes of Health—also support education- related research and the directors of these agencies serve as nonvoting ex officio members on the NBES. In addition, many nongovernmental organizations conduct education-related research and evaluations that inform general knowledge and understanding of educational policies, programs, and practice. For example, foundations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, The William T. Grant Foundation, and The Spencer Foundation, conduct education research or program evaluation in specific topic areas to advance the public interest or their organization’s mission or goals. Additionally, other research organizations such as Mathematica Policy Research, MDRC, and SRI International, contract with the federal government or other clients to conduct agreed upon research or program evaluations on their behalf. IES has substantially improved the education research field. In 2007, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) assessed IES’s research and concluded that IES had transformed the quality and rigor of research within Education and increased the demand for scientifically based evidence of effectiveness in the education field as a whole. Likewise, many stakeholders told us that IES’s research standards had improved Education’s research and had a positive influence on education research generally. More specifically, several stakeholders told us that IES products, such as its publications of education statistics reports, were useful for their work. In addition, one regional comprehensive center director told us that a Practice Guide IES released on dropout prevention has become the framework that one of the states in its region is using for dropout prevention efforts statewide. While IES’s research grants and evaluations have resulted in many randomized controlled studies since the agency was established over 10 years ago, its research standards also include guidelines for the implementation of other rigorous research methodologies, and it has recently funded studies using those methodologies, such as regression discontinuity or single-case designs. Further, IES officials also described a variety of other types of research that the agency supports, such as data analyses and correlational analyses. IES’s support of these multiple types of methodologies allows it to better meet its various stakeholders’ needs. At the same time, IES’s research can be of limited usefulness to policymakers and practitioners if it is not released in a timely manner. Some stakeholders told us that research and evaluations supported by IES may not be completed soon enough to inform the decision making of policymakers and practitioners on important questions, which is a key component of its mission. For example, officials from one constituency- based organization for policymakers told us that IES’s evaluation of Education’s Race to the Top and School Improvement Grant Programs are of great interest to states, but by the time the results of these evaluations are released in 2014, states will not have much time to implement lessons learned from these studies before their program’s funding expires. IES’s peer review process may also exacerbate timeliness concerns. In order to ensure the high quality of IES’s work, ESRA requires IES- supported research reports to be peer reviewed before being published. In recent years however, the time it takes to complete this review process substantially increased, from an average of 117 days in fiscal year 2011 to 175 days in fiscal year 2012 and 150 days in fiscal year 2013. As long ago as 2008, peer review timeliness was a concern of the NBES and at that time, they recommended that IES establish procedures to ensure the timely receipt of reports and revisions from its contractors. When asked for explanations for the recent increase in its peer review timeframes, senior IES officials told us that the timeliness of IES contractor responses to peer review comments may still be a factor. They also cited factors such as the complexity of the reports reviewed recently and the time it took IES’s Centers to work with its contractors on suitable responses to peer review comments. However, IES officials told us that while the peer review office within IES monitors the time its own staff take to review reports, the peer review office does not monitor the time IES’s Centers or contractors take to respond to peer review comments. Such monitoring would allow IES to take steps to mitigate delays, such as by holding contractors more accountable. In accordance with federal internal control standards, program managers should have access to and use operational data to determine whether they are meeting their agencies’ goals for accountability for effective and efficient use of resources. To ensure that its research addresses the needs of a range of stakeholders and to address concerns about how relevant its research is to these stakeholders, IES is soliciting feedback from practitioners and redesigning some existing programs.