Article

The CORE Framework: A Process-Oriented Approach to Boosting Survey Response Rates in Grant-Funded Program Evaluation

---

Abstract

Low survey response rates remain a persistent challenge in evaluation, undermining validity, credibility, and the usefulness of findings for stakeholders and funders. The problem is especially acute in grant-funded projects, where evaluators inherit, adapt, or design survey instruments under varying degrees of control, navigate access to respondents through program staff, and work under tight grant-driven timelines. While decades of methodological research suggest strategies to boost participation, few frameworks integrate these insights into a process tailored to evaluators' constraints. This paper introduces the CORE framework—Cultivate Engagement, Optimize Instruments, Remind Strategically, and Evaluate & Feedback—as a sequenced, practice-oriented conceptual model grounded in existing survey methodology literature. CORE is not presented as an empirically validated intervention; rather, it organizes evidence-based strategies into a replicable process and illustrates its application through composite examples drawn from grant-funded evaluation practice. The paper situates CORE within existing approaches, such as Dillman's Tailored Design Method and the meta-analytic strategy literature, to highlight its unique role as an evaluator-centered, cyclical process crafted to overcome the challenges of grant-funded projects. CORE combines technical rigor with relational strategies such as trust-building and transparent communication. The author concludes with implications for evaluators and funders, highlighting CORE's potential to enhance methodological credibility, equity, and grant competitiveness.

Keywords: survey response rates, program evaluation, grant-funded projects, middle-range theory, equity

How to Cite:

Su, H., (2026) “The CORE Framework: A Process-Oriented Approach to Boosting Survey Response Rates in Grant-Funded Program Evaluation”, Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation 31(1): 14. doi: https://doi.org/10.7275/pare.3386