Overview
As part of our audit, we conducted a survey of Massachusetts school districts to gather feedback on their experiences with the Massachusetts School Building Authority’s (MSBA’s) Core Program. The survey was sent to a judgmental sample of 50 school districts, selected to include districts from different geographic locations, districts with varying percentages of students from households with low incomes, and districts with different levels of previous participation in the MSBA Core Program. Specifically, the sample included districts that had (1) submitted a Statement of Interest (SOI) and were ultimately invited to participate in the program, (2) submitted an SOI but were not invited to participate in the program, and (3) not submitted an SOI during the period January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2024. Survey respondents included school district superintendents, unless the superintendent determined that another individual was more familiar with the program and better suited to respond on behalf of the district.
The survey asked respondents about their familiarity with the MSBA Core Program, their opinions on the program’s equity in serving districts, and the usefulness of any guidance and training provided by MSBA. The survey also sought input on respondents’ interactions with MSBA, including the clarity of guidance provided, timeliness of responses, and overall satisfaction with the program’s processes. Respondents were also invited to share any challenges they encountered and suggestions for improvement.
Of the 50 district superintendents surveyed, we received responses from 43. Two district superintendents did not respond to the survey or any follow-up communications, and five district superintendents indicated that no one within their district had sufficient institutional knowledge of MSBA’s Core Program to complete the survey.10
Of the 43 respondents, most indicated that they were well acquainted with MSBA’s Core Program. Specifically, 37 respondents (86%) reported being either very familiar or somewhat familiar with the program, while 6 (14%) stated that they had heard of it but were not sure what it included. In contrast, familiarity with MSBA’s Green Schools Program was notably lower. Of the 43 respondents, only 5 (12%) reported being very familiar and 14 (33%) somewhat familiar with the Green Schools Program, while 15 (35%) reported that they had heard of it but were unsure of its components, and 8 (19%) reported that they were not at all familiar with it. One district did not respond to this question.
When asked whether they felt their district had equitable access to apply for and receive funding through the MSBA Core Program, most respondents stated that they did. Of the 43 respondents who answered this question, 36 (82%) responded “yes,” stating that they believe there is equitable access to the program. Six respondents (13.6%) answered “no,” stating that they did not believe access was equitable, and one respondent (2.3%) reported being unsure. One respondent did not respond to this question. Respondents who answered “no” cited concerns such as a lack of awareness about the program, uncertainty regarding eligibility—particularly among Horace Mann Charter Schools—and a perception that smaller districts are sometimes overlooked in favor of larger projects.
A recurring theme among survey responses concerned the level of feedback provided by MSBA to districts where their SOIs did not result in an invitation to participate in the Core Program. Several respondents reported that, although they were informed that their projects were not selected, they did not receive detailed explanations regarding the specific factors that influenced the decision. Respondents noted that they were typically told how many districts applied and how many were invited to participate. Respondents also stated that they had been told that their projects were not advanced because other districts demonstrated greater need or urgency during that funding cycle.
District officials stated that receiving more specific and actionable feedback would be valuable in strengthening their future SOIs. For example, respondents suggested that MSBA could identify the particular criteria or project elements that fell short of selection standards and outline what changes would be needed for a project to be invited in future rounds. This concern regarding limited feedback was also noted in our prior audit of MSBA, where we recommended that MSBA provide specific reasons when it does not select a district’s SOI. Survey responses indicated that districts continue to view the feedback process as an area in need of improvement.
Because districts are eligible to submit SOIs in future years, it would be advantageous for them to understand how their submissions compare to those of other districts considered by MSBA. Preparing an SOI requires a substantial investment of time and effort by district personnel. Understanding why an SOI was not selected would help districts make targeted improvements and better align future submissions with MSBA’s criteria. To enhance the transparency of its SOI review process, MSBA should inform each district of the specific reasons its SOI was not selected for invitation.
Our survey findings indicate that while most school districts are familiar with the MSBA Core Program, several areas for improvement remain. Districts continue to cite limited feedback on SOI decisions as a barrier to strengthening future submissions, highlighting the need for MSBA to provide specific, actionable guidance and support. Familiarity with the MSBA Green Schools Program is considerably lower, suggesting an opportunity for MSBA to proactively raise awareness and provide additional guidance on this program. By improving feedback on SOIs, offering clearer guidance, and increasing outreach about the Green Schools Program, MSBA can better support districts in navigating its programs, enhancing future applications, and achieving successful project outcomes.
Auditee’s Response
The MSBA appreciates that the Office of the State Auditor shared some of the responses from the survey conducted. The MSBA prides itself on its communication with its districts and takes many steps to provide informational sessions about the MSBA program, school construction and other relevant topics for our districts. The MSBA is pleased that 82% of the districts reported that their district had equitable access to apply for and receive funding through the MSBA Core Program. We also appreciate that you are sharing some areas where districts have noted that they would benefit from additional MSBA feedback. We will review our current communication in these areas and look for opportunities to enhance our communication, as appropriate.
During presentations regarding the Core Program process, we discussed that the reasons for invitations and non-invitations were included as part of the Board memo for Core Program recommendations, which is available on our website. In addition, we shared that the MSBA makes itself available to discuss any questions from districts who participated in the SOI process or who are interested in future participation. Your office recommended that the MSBA should incorporate these reasons into the individual letters to districts who applied for the Core Program similar to the letters issued for Accelerated Repair Program. The MSBA has accepted this recommendation and will be including this in the letters issued for the 2025 Core Statements of Interest.
Auditor’s Reply
Based on its response, MSBA is taking measures to address our concerns regarding this matter. As part of our post-audit review process, we will follow up on this matter in approximately six months.
| Date published: | December 24, 2025 |
|---|