• Introduction
• Target Population
• Customer Profile
• Publications
• Databases and User Tools
• Services
• Comparison of Results From the 1997 and 1999 Surveys

In 1999, the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) surveyed a targeted sample of its current and potential customers to determine their levels of satisfaction and needs related to

• NCES publications;
• NCES databases and user tools; and
• NCES services such as ordering publications or databases, information services, and the NCES Web Site.

This report summarizes the results of the 1999 Customer Satisfaction Survey and also compares results from the 1999 and 1997 surveys for the core customer groups—policymakers and academic researchers—that were sampled in both years. All satisfaction results reported apply to those customers who indicated that they had used the product or service in question and all percentages reported are based on weighted data.

The 1999 Customer Satisfaction Survey does not reflect—nor was it intended to reflect—the total NCES customer base or the views of all its customers. Rather, it focuses on responses of specific customer groups whose use of NCES products and services can have an important effect on the “condition and progress of education.” In 1999, NCES targeted a population made up of the following seven customer groups, the distribution of which is shown in figure A:

• federal policymakers from the U.S. Department of Education (Assistant and Under Secretaries and other staff), National Science Foundation, Office of Management and Budget, Congressional Research Service, Congressional Budget Office, General Accounting Office, Senate and House committees, and Presidential staff;
• state policymakers from the National Conference of State Legislators, Council of Chief State School Officers, State Higher Education Executive and Finance Officers, Chief Officers of State Library Agencies, education policy advisors to state governors, and education assessment directors in state departments of education;
• local policymakers from elementary/secondary school districts or postsecondary institutions—including school district superintendents and higher education administrators such as directors of institutional research—or other school district or institutional staff members who used educational data for policymaking purposes;
• academic researchers, identified as directors of Office of Educational Research and Improvement centers and regional laboratories, and members of the American Educational Research Association (AERA);
• education associations’ policy staff, represented by one education data user from the administrative office of each trade or professional association related to education;
• education journalists, including newspaper reporters who were members of the Education Writers Association and some additional education journalists identified by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Public Affairs; and
• National Education Data Resource Center (NEDRC) users, consisting of people who had requested NCES information because they did not have the appropriate skills or facilities to take advantage of the available NCES databases and user tools.

Figure A.—Distribution of the target population by customer group: 1999

From a list of more than 40,000 individuals in the seven customer groups, NCES sent mail or Internet questionnaires to 3,284, of whom 3,256 were found to be eligible.¹ All who had not responded after about 7 weeks were called and asked to complete a telephone interview. With 2,563 respondents, the final response rate was 79 percent.

A majority of respondents had heard of NCES and had used its products and services (72 percent and 61 percent, respectively) (figure B). The level of awareness of NCES and use of its products and services varied across customer groups. The following customer groups were the four groups that were most likely both to have heard of NCES and to have used its products or services:

• federal policymakers (98 percent and 91 percent, respectively);
• state policymakers (91 percent and 83 percent, respectively);
• education associations (89 percent and 84 percent, respectively); and
• NEDRC users (84 percent and 87 percent, respectively).

NCES users tended to have used NCES products and services recently; 72 percent, overall, had used them in the past 12 months, with such recent use highest among federal policymakers, state policymakers, and education association users (above 90 percent).

The uses made of NCES products and services covered many areas. The predominant uses that NCES users cited were research and analysis (82 percent), general information (77 percent), and planning (53 percent).

Figure B.—Awareness of NCES and use of its products or services, by customer group: 1999

Although, overall, 45 percent of the respondents had used NCES publications in the past 2 years, the level of use varied among customer groups. In the past 2 years, the following three groups were the most likely to have used NCES publications:

• federal policymakers (82 percent);
• state policymakers (73 percent); and
• education associations (73 percent).

The percentage of respondents who were unaware of NCES publications was substantial (32 percent), and this percentage was not insignificant even among two of the three groups with the highest rate of usage of publications:

• state policymakers (13 percent); and
• education associations (14 percent).

More than a third of NCES publication users obtained publications through the Internet (43 percent), whereas a majority of the users indicated they used traditionally-bound-and-printed publications (76 percent).

NCES statistical compendia received very high marks, with over 90 percent of customers reporting that they were satisfied or very satisfied with two out of the three compendia:

• The Condition of Education (93 percent);
• Digest of Education Statistics (93 percent); and
• Projections of Education Statistics (88 percent).

No more than 5 percent of users reported dissatisfaction with such publication aspects as overall quality, comprehensiveness, ease of understanding, relevance of information, and accuracy. However, 15 percent of users reported dissatisfaction with timeliness.

A majority of respondents were unaware of NCES databases or user tools (58 percent). Although, overall, only 12 percent of respondents had used NCES databases or user tools, the level of use among those who were aware of NCES databases and user tools was 29 percent.

No one database or user tool was used by more than 5 percent of customers during the past 2 years. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) database was used most often (5 percent) and the library surveys databases were used least often (1 percent).

Customers employing specific NCES user tools such as the Electronic Code Book (ECB) and the Data Analysis System (DAS) gave these tools satisfaction ratings ranging from 84 to 92 percent. The percentage of users satisfied with the specific NCES databases ranged from 74 to 91 percent.

Users were most dissatisfied with the timeliness of the database release, ease of access, and ease of use of these databases and user tools (20, 16, and 15 percent, respectively).

As with databases and user tools, a majority of respondents were unaware of the availability of the range of NCES services (54 percent). Although, overall, only 22 percent of respondents had used NCES services, the level of use among those who were aware of these services was 47 percent. Among those who were aware, the percentage of use was highest among NEDRC users (93 percent), education associations (74 percent), and federal policymakers (71 percent).

Most users of NCES services (82 percent) had used these services occasionally in the past 2 years, while the rest had used them more often (14 percent monthly and 4 percent weekly). Users were most likely to use the following NCES services:

• visiting the NCES Web Site (15 percent);
• requesting information from NCES staff (13 percent); and
• ordering NCES materials through ED Pubs (11 percent).

Satisfaction levels with all services were high, ranging from 84 to 96 percent. Customers also reported a high level of satisfaction (at least 80 percent) with all listed aspects of NCES services except the handling of complaints (60 percent).

NCES targeted the same four core customer groups—federal, state, and local policymakers and academic researchers—in 1997 and 1999. Comparing results from these four groups shows that, overall, there were no profound changes in customers’ responses from 1997 to 1999. (Note that since the comparisons use only responses from the four core groups out of the seven groups surveyed in 1999, the 1999 percentages presented in this section are different from the 1999 percentages cited above.)

More than 85 percent of customers reported being satisfied or very satisfied with NCES compendia publications in both 1997 and 1999. Although satisfaction with the Digest of Education Statistics remained high among state policymakers, there was a decrease in satisfaction between 1997 and 1999 (from 97 percent to 92 percent).

Also, between 79 and 93 percent of customers reported being satisfied or very satisfied with the following program-specific NCES publications in both years:

• educational assessment publications;
• national longitudinal studies publications;
• elementary and secondary education publications; and
• postsecondary publications.

There were some specific findings that may merit further consideration. For example, with regard to the program-specific publications, the percentage of users satisfied or very satisfied

• increased by 8 percentage points for the national longitudinal studies publications between 1997 and 1999 (from 81 percent to 89 percent); and
• was below 75 percent in both 1997 and 1999 for the library publications (72 percent and 64 percent, respectively).

With regard to aspects of NCES publications, similar percentages of customers (around 80 to 90 percent) reported being satisfied or very satisfied in both 1997 and 1999 with five of the six aspects (overall quality, relevance, accuracy, ease of understanding, and comprehensiveness). However, a sixth aspect, timeliness, showed a notable improvement in customers’ levels of satisfaction. The percentage of users who were satisfied or very satisfied with timeliness increased from 72 percent in 1997 to 78 percent in 1999. Also, the aspect of overall quality was consistently rated the highest among the six aspects in both years (90 percent in 1997 and 93 percent in 1999).

In both 1997 and 1999, about 90 percent of customers reported being satisfied or very satisfied with the NCES elementary and secondary education databases and assessment database that were asked about in both years. The percentage of customers satisfied with databases in the longitudinal, postsecondary, and library studies areas ranged between 72 and 91 percent in both years.³

With regard to aspects of NCES databases, similar percentages of customers (between 69 and 87 percent) reported being satisfied or very satisfied in both 1997 and 1999 with four of the six aspects of NCES databases (accuracy of database, database documentation, ease of use, and comprehensiveness of database). However, two aspects, ease of access and timeliness, showed a notable improvement in customers’ levels of satisfaction between 1997 and 1999. The percentage of users who were satisfied or very satisfied increased

• by 18 percentage points for ease of access of databases (from 55 percent to 73 percent); and
• by 15 percentage points for timeliness of databases (from 52 percent to 67 percent).

Also, the aspect of comprehensiveness of database was consistently rated the highest among the six aspects in both years (81 percent in 1997 and 87 percent in 1999).

Generally, around 90 to 95 percent of customers reported being satisfied or very satisfied with the following NCES services:

• National Education Data Resource Center (NEDRC);
• Department of Education’s toll-free number; and
• CES Web Site.

With regard to the seven aspects of NCES services that were asked about in both 1997 and 1999, similar percentages of customers (83 to 93 percent) reported being satisfied or very satisfied in both years with four aspects (extent to which the information met your needs, staff expertise, time needed to reach knowledgeable staff, courtesy of staff). However, the percentage of users who were satisfied or very satisfied differed between 1997 and 1999 for the other three aspects. The percentage satisfied or very satisfied

• increased by 4 percentage points for speed with which information was received (from 89 percent in 1997 to 93 percent in 1999);
• decreased by 5 percentage points for ease of obtaining information (from 92 percent in 1997 to 87 percent in 1999); and
• decreased by 15 percentage points for handling of complaints (from 75 percent in 1997 to 60 percent in 1999).

Also, the aspect of extent to which information met customer needs was consistently rated the highest among the seven aspects in both years (92 percent in 1997 and 93 percent in 1999).

The percentage of respondents aware of how to contact NCES increased from 34 percent in 1997 to 47 percent in 1999. This reflected increased percentages of awareness among state policymakers (from 69 percent in 1997 to 77 percent in 1999) and among local policymakers (from 32 percent in 1997 to 44 percent in 1999).

¹A person in the sample could be ineligible for any of the following reasons: (1) death; (2) retirement without replacement (if a member of the sample retired but was replaced, the replacement became the sample member, except in the case of AERA members in the academic researcher group); and (3) closure of the institution that the person represented (higher education subgroup of the local policymaker group).

²Note that the 1999 Customer Satisfaction Survey asked respondents about use and levels of satisfaction with aspects of NCES databases and user tools, while the 1997 survey questions referred only to NCES data files.

³Altogether, 13 NCES databases were included in both the 1997 and 1999 surveys. They were as follows: three elementary and secondary education databases—the National Household Education Survey (NHES), the Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), and the Common Core of Data (CCD); one assessment database—the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP); three longitudinal databases—the Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study (B&B), the Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS), and the National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988 Eighth-Graders (NELS:88); three postsecondary databases—the National Study of Postsecondary Faculty (NSOPF), the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS), and the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS); and three library studies databases—the School Library Survey (SLS), the Public Libraries Survey (PLS), and the Academic Libraries Survey (ALS).

Data source:The NCES 1997 and 1999 Customer Satisfaction Surveys. For technical information, see the complete report: Salvucci, S., Parker, A.C.E., Cash, R.W., and Thurgood, L. (2001). 1999 Customer Satisfaction Survey Report: How Do We Measure Up? (NCES 2001–601). Author affiliations: S. Salvucci, A.C.E. Parker, R.W. Cash, and L. Thurgood, Synectics for Management Decisions, Inc. For questions about content, contact Arnold Goldstein (arnold.goldstein@ed.gov). To obtain the complete report (NCES 2001–601), call the toll-free ED Pubs number (877-433-7827) or visit the NCES Web Site (http://nces.ed.gov).