21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) Analytic Support for Evaluation and Program Monitoring: An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04 June 2005 Carol J. Mitchell, Program Manager U.S. Department of Education 21st Century Community Learning Centers Neil Naftzger Jonathan Margolin Seth Kaufman Learning Point Associates 1120 East Diehl Road, Suite 200 Naperville, IL 60563-1486 800-356-2735 .. 630-649-6500 www.learningpt.org Copyright © 2005 Learning Point Associates, sponsored under government Analytic Support for Evaluation and Program Monitoring, OMB number 1810-0668. All rights reserved. This work was originally produced in whole or in part with funds from the U.S. Department of Education under Analytic Support for Evaluation and Program Monitoring, OMB number 1810-0668. The content does not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Education, nor does mention or visual representation of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the federal government. Contents Page Executive Summary............................................................................................................ 1 Introduction........................................................................................................................ 2 The 21st CCLC Profile and Performance Information Collection System (PPICS)..................................................................................... 3 Report Organization...................................................................................................... 6 Section 1: State Competitions and Activities...................................................................... 7 Characteristics of Subgrant Competitions .................................................................... 7 Outcomes of Subgrant Competitions............................................................................ 9 State Activities............................................................................................................ 12 Section 2: Grantee and Center Characteristics.................................................................. 15 Grantee and Center Organizational Type ................................................................... 15 Centers Operating Afterschool Programs Before Receiving a 21st CCLC Grant .............................................................................. 16 Grade Levels Served by Centers................................................................................. 17 Centers and Feeder Schools........................................................................................ 18 Section 3: Structural Features and Operations.................................................................. 20 Sources of Grantee Funding........................................................................................ 20 Partnerships................................................................................................................. 21 Operations................................................................................................................... 25 Staffing....................................................................................................................... 28 Section 4: Programming ................................................................................................... 30 Type of Services Offered by Centers.......................................................................... 30 Intensity of Program Offerings ................................................................................... 33 Section 5: Attendance ....................................................................................................... 36 Yearly Attendance Totals ........................................................................................... 36 Program Attendance as a Function of Student Characteristics................................... 37 Attendance by Grade Level ........................................................................................ 39 Section 6: Student Achievement and Academic Behavioral Outcomes ........................... 40 Proportion of States Selecting Different Reporting Options ...................................... 40 Change in Mathematics and Reading and Language Arts Grades.............................. 43 Proficiency Levels in Mathematics and Reading and Language Arts ........................ 44 Cross-Year Change in Mathematics and Reading and Language Arts Proficiency ................................................................................... 45 Change in Academic Behaviors.................................................................................. 47 Status of Grantee-Identified Objectives...................................................................... 49 Conclusions and Next Steps.............................................................................................. 51 Appendixes Appendix A. State Tables ........................................................................................... 53 Appendix B. State Proficiency Levels........................................................................ 62 Appendix C. Glossary................................................................................................. 65 Executive Summary Introduction The primary purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the 21st Century Community Learning Center (21st CCLC) program as it exists under state administration. This report will explore how states are using the discretion afforded to them to implement their statewide programs, what services and activities are being provided by 21st CCLC grantees across the country, who is participating in grant-funded activities, and what progress is being made in achieving the performance indicators associated with the 21st CCLC program. It is important to point out that this report is meant to be a purely descriptive look at the 21st CCLC program. It is intended that the information presented here will provide a greater understanding of the nature of the state-administered 21st CCLC programs from a national perspective. All of the information outlined in this report was obtained from the 21st CCLC Profile and Performance Information Collection System (PPICS). Funded by the U.S. Department of Education, PPICS is a Web-based data-collection system designed to capture information regarding state-administered 21st CCLC programs. State Competitions and Activities This section summarizes the competitive request for proposal (RFP) process that states utilize to award grants to new 21st CCLC programs as well as state allocations of funding to support monitoring and evaluation efforts, technical assistance to grantees, and training. Characteristics of Subgrant Competitions In the 2004 calendar year, 51 states ran a total of 60 competitions that solicited proposals to operate a 21st CCLC (i.e., RFP competitions). States shaped subgrant competitions by specifying competitive priorities as part of these competitions and performance indicators that grantees receiving awards from a given competition would need to conform to in the operation of their programs. The vast majority of states adopted some type of performance indicator of academic achievement, measured via either achievement tests or classroom performance. Most states also adopted some measure of school behavior as a performance indicator. The competitive priorities specified in the RFP competitions reflected the goals of the 21st CCLC program. States had the discretion to set both mandatory and optional funding priorities for the competitions administered during 2004. In PPICS, a mandatory priority was defined as a condition specified in the RFP that an applying entity must meet in order to be eligible for 21st CCLC funding, while an optional priority is a condition specified in the RFP that provides an applicant with a competitive edge in the subgrant competition (e.g., an additional 20 points is added to an applicant’s final score if it proposes to offer programming to reduce obesity). Most competitions specified either a joint application or a community-based organization partnership as a mandatory or optional priority. Moreover, three quarters of competitions made the provision of services in at least one core academic area a mandatory priority. With somewhat Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—1 less prevalence, competitions gave priority to applicants proposing to serve adult family members and to improve the academic achievement of limited-English-proficient (LEP) students. Outcomes of Subgrant Competitions According to the 59 complete Competition Overview records entered into PPICS associated with 2004, 3,469 organizations applied for subgrants, and 1,327 of these received awards, for a funding rate of 38 percent. Applicants requested a total of $1,260,462,271 in first-year funds while $460,186,892 actually was awarded to support the initial year of operation for new grantees funded in 2004, for a dollar-based funding rate of 37 percent. Some additional points regarding the awarding of grants are as follows: • School districts comprised 61 percent of applicants and 69 percent of actual grantees, while community-based organizations comprised 17 percent of applicants and 15 percent of grantees. • The most frequent grant length associated with competitions held in 2004 was five years, indicating that the change in the policy regarding maximum grant length had a significant impact on ensuring the longevity of these programs. State Activities Most states allocated the full 2 percent allotment for administrative costs and the full 3 percent allotment for training, technical assistance, and evaluation services. All or nearly all states allocated funds to support applicant and grantee training along with the monitoring of programs and activities. The following points address specific training activities: • At least 90 percent of all state education agencies (SEAs) allocated funding for training in fiscal management, reporting and evaluation requirements, enhancing academic content, and enhancing community involvement. • Slightly more than 80 percent of SEAs reported offering training to promote program sustainability. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—2 Grantee and Center Characteristics From the first round of awards made during 2002 to the most recent awards made in calendar year 2004, SEAs awarded 2,729 grants that presently are funding 8,448 centers nationwide. This section provides additional detail about these grantees and centers, their length of time in existence, and the grade levels they intend to serve. Organization Type The passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act expanded funding eligibility to include public and private educational and youth-serving organizations in addition to schools. School districts are still the most represented organizational type among grantees, serving as the fiscal agent on 68 percent of all 21st CCLC grants. Community-based organizations (15 percent) and nationally affiliated nonprofit agencies (4 percent) collectively make up 19 percent of all grantees, with the remaining 13 percent representing a wide variety of other organization types. However, 90 percent of centers are located in schools, indicating that even centers funded by a grant obtained by a nonschool entity often are housed in schools. Previous Funding and Operations The transition from federal to state administration of the 21st CCLC grant program saw a marked increase in the number of grantees funded for the first time. Most centers (82 percent) had not been funded as part of a federal 21st CCLC discretionary grant prior to receiving funding from a state-administered 21st CCLC grant. About half of the centers that did not receive federal 21st CCLC funds had no program prior to receiving a state-administered grant. In other words, 44 percent of all centers did not provide any afterschool services prior to receiving a state- administered 21st CCLC grant. Grades Served 21st CCLC programs are available to all grade levels (prekindergarten through Grade 12). Elementary school students are the group most frequently targeted for services by centers. About half of centers serve elementary school students exclusively, and at least two thirds of all centers serve some elementary students. About 36 percent of centers serve middle school students, but only 20 percent of these centers exclusively target this population. Finally, 15 percent of centers serve high school students, but only 5 percent of centers exclusively target these students. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—1 Structural Features and Operations Structural features of an afterschool program, such as staffing, hours of operation, financial resources, and community partnerships, can impact the quality of the programming and the opportunities to form positive relationships with peers and staff. External Funding Sources One challenge of sustaining a 21st CCLC is to supplement grant-funded efforts with funding from other sources. Overall, 72 percent of grantees had at least one funding source other than the 21st CCLC program; most typically, grantees reported having two other funding sources. Local school districts provided some funding to about one third of all 21st CCLC programs, with Title I funding (excluding Supplemental Educational Services) and other state sources providing some additional funding to 27 percent and 28 percent of grantees, respectively. The Supplemental Educational Services program served as an additional funding source for 9 percent of programs administered by 21st CCLC grantees. Partnership Types and Partner Contributions Partnerships provide grantees with connections to the community and additional resources that may not be available to the program otherwise. The typical grantee had six partners. Community- based organizations are the most represented organization type, composing more than 23 percent of all partners. Nationally affiliated nonprofit agencies are the next most frequent partner type (12 percent of partners) followed by for-profit entities (11 percent) and school districts (10 percent). About 28 percent of all partners were subcontractors (i.e., under contract with the grantee to provide grant-funded activities or services). The typical grantee has one subcontractor. The most common partnership contribution is to provide programming for the 21st CCLC, followed by goods, volunteer staff, and paid staff. Subcontractors were more than twice as likely as nonsubcontractors to provide paid staff to the centers. Center Times of Operation One of the goals of the 21st CCLC program is to provide students with productive and engaging activities at times when they would otherwise be without adult supervision (e.g., before or after school, on the weekends, or during the summer). Nearly all centers at all school levels planned to provide programming after the school day. Compared with those serving only elementary or middle schools (or both), centers serving high schools or both middle and high schools are more likely to offer weekend hours. The percentage of centers offering services during the summer ranged from 60 percent to 70 percent across different categories of school level. Centers reported their hours per day, days per week, and weeks per year of operation. About 67 percent of centers reported being open 11 hours or more per week. About 91 percent of centers reported being open four or more days per week, while 69 percent of centers reported being open 29 or more weeks during the 2003–04 school year. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—1 Staffing Centers were also asked to report the background and training of their staff when completing PPICS, and indicated what number of each type were paid staff and what number were volunteer staff. The typical center reported having 13 paid and 8 volunteer staff during the 2003–04 school year. School-day teachers are by far the highest proportion of afterschool staff. School-day teachers, youth development workers, and nonteaching school staff usually are paid for their afterschool time while parents and other community members are usually volunteers. Prevalence and Intensity of Programming Centers described the various activities and services offered in their programs as well as the intensity with which each was offered. It is important to point out that activity information collected in PPICS allowed respondents to classify a single activity both by category and subject area. For example, a center may have offered a rocketry club during the 2003–04 school year in which participants learn to build and launch rockets while also studying astronomy. In this case, this activity would be classifiable as an academic enrichment learning program (category) and as a science educational activity (subject area). A similar degree of flexibility was afforded to respondents when a single activity could be classified in more than one category. For example, an activity with both tutoring and mentoring components would be counted in both categories in PPICS. Prevalence and Intensity of Categories of Service Centers described their activities according to the category of service delivery, or activities targeting a particular participant population. Reflecting the central goals of the 21st CCLC program, the three most widely offered categories of activity were academic enrichment learning programs, academic assistance, and recreational activities (offered by 90 percent, 87 percent, and 85 percent of centers, respectively). Approximately 60 percent of centers offered programs involving drug prevention and promoting parent involvement in children’s literacy. Centers described the intensity with which they offered different activities by indicating the typical amount of time per week they offered each type. Services addressing academic needs are among the most intensely offered. Academic remediation, enrichment, and tutoring are all typically offered at least six hours per week. Recreational services are also among the most intensely offered type of programming, with an average of slightly more than six hours of programming during a typical week. Mentoring; activities for LEP students; activities for students who have been truant, suspended, or expelled; and activities that promote leadership all were typically offered between four and five hours per week. Drug- and violence-prevention programs and those that promote parental involvement were not offered intensively, relative to other categories (typically fewer than three hours per week). Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—2 Prevalence and Intensity of Subject-Area Programming Centers also categorized their programming based on subject areas or educational content. More than 90 percent of centers provided reading and mathematics education programs. This reflects the program’s mandate to enhance academic achievement in core curricular areas. Although science education activities are provided by 69 percent of centers, this level is exceeded by activities involving arts and music (more than 80 percent) and about equal to those including culture and social studies. Relatively few centers offered entrepreneurial education programs (20 percent). Reading and mathematics were the subjects of the most intensive programming, with an average of about six and a half hours per week of reading programming and about five and a half hours of mathematics programming per typical week. Programming in science, the other core academic subject, was offered less intensely (an average of nearly four hours per week). This may reflect a lack of qualified staff or a lesser emphasis on this subject. All other subjects were provided an average of three to four hours per week. Attendance Attendance, as an intermediate outcome indicator, reflects the breadth and depth of exposure to afterschool programming. Centers reported the total number of students who participated in the center’s programming during the year as well as the number of regular attendees (i.e., those who participated in 30 days or more of activity). The typical center had 59 regular attendees and 105 total attendees. One way of examining the reach of the 21st CCLC program is to examine the participation of students with different needs and backgrounds such as ethnicity, participation in special services, and gender. Several ethnic minorities are overrepresented as participants relative to their proportion of the general population. This reflects the program’s focus on economically disadvantaged populations. More directly to this point, nearly two thirds of regular attendees qualified for free or reduced-price lunch, a figure that is in line with the goals of the program to target students from high poverty communities. About 17 percent of participants have limited English proficiency, and 8 percent have special needs or disabilities. Finally, the proportions of male and female participants are equivalent, indicating that the program has achieved gender equity. The 21st CCLC program can be targeted toward students at all grade levels, although centers most typically gear their programs toward elementary students. The prevalence per grade level peaks in late elementary school, then drops off continuously through the middle school, Grades 6–8. This reflects the need for the young students to stay under regular adult supervision after school. As students reach the high school grades, there is a marked dropoff in attendance. This may reflect both the greater number of afterschool options for older students (including employment) and their lower need for adult supervision. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—1 Student Achievement and Behavioral Outcomes Centers reported on a number of indicators regarding their program’s positive impact on student achievement and academic behaviors, such as changes in student grades, proficiency levels, and changes in teacher-rated student behavior. All of these findings are based on regular program attendees. Change in Student Grades Centers reported the number of regular attendees who improved by half a grade or more, stayed the same, or declined by half a grade in reading and language arts or mathematics across the span of the 2003–04 school year. About 45 percent of all participants improved their reading and language arts grades, whereas only about 17 percent declined. Similarly, about 41 percent of all participants improved their mathematics grades, whereas about 19 percent declined. A greater proportion of elementary students improved their mathematics and reading and language arts grades (43 percent and 47 percent, respectively) than middle school students (38 percent in mathematics and 41 percent in reading and language arts). Conversely, a lower proportion of elementary students decreased in mathematics and reading and language arts grades (18 percent and 15 percent, respectively) compared to middle school students (24 percent in mathematics and 22 percent in reading and language arts). Proficiency Levels in Mathematics and Reading and Language Arts Centers reported the level of proficiency in mathematics and reading and language arts for each of their regular attendees. Although these data do not indicate the level of student improvement, it does provide a baseline from which to compare improvements in future years. About 45 percent of attendees are at a basic proficiency level in reading, and about 43 percent are scoring at proficient. Similarly, about 49 percent of attendees are at a basic proficiency level in mathematics, and about 40 percent are scoring at proficient. Cross-Year Change in Mathematics and Reading and Language Arts Ten states reported on the extent to which regular attendees witnessed a change in proficiency levels in mathematics or reading and language arts on state assessments taken during the 2003– 04 school year, compared with the 2002–03 school year. For both mathematics and reading and language arts assessments, 31 percent of students witnessed an improvement in the proficiency level at which they scored, whereas about 20 percent witnessed a decrease in their proficiency level. A slightly greater proportion of students in middle and high school programs witnessed an improvement in proficiency level (32 percent improving in reading and language arts and 35 percent improving in mathematics) than did students in elementary school programs (30 percent in reading and language arts and 29 percent in mathematics). Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—1 Change in Academic Behaviors In order to assess the degree of behavioral change, teachers in 21 states completed a survey in which they rated the degree of improvement in academic behaviors exhibited by regular program participants across the 2003–04 school year. The categories of behavior with the highest percentage of student improvement were academic performance (71 percent of students exhibiting improvement), completing homework to the teacher’s satisfaction and class participation (69 percent each), and turning in homework on time (68 percent). For every category of behavior, teachers rated a majority of students as having improved. In no category of behavior did the percentage of students declining in behavior exceed 7 percent. Teachers also rated the degree of student improvement in each behavioral category. For most categories, around 40 percent of respondents who said that students improved indicated that this improvement was “significant,” 30 percent indicated “moderate” improvement, and about 30 percent indicated “slight” improvement. However, regarding regular class attendance, nearly 50 percent of respondents who had indicated improvement described it as “significant.” Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—1 Introduction Each weekday afternoon in America as the ringing of the school bell signifies the end of the school day, nearly a million school-age children continue to learn by participating afterschool in academic enrichment programs and other youth development and support activities designed to enhance their academic well-being. These activities and services are being offered by 8,725 centers funded by the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) program. The 21st CCLC program began as a federal discretionary grant program in 1998 and supported more than 1,600 grants to local education agencies (LEAs) that provided a broad array of out-ofschool time services to children and community members. Reauthorized under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, the primary purposes of the 21st CCLC program according to the nonregulatory guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Education in 2003 are to: 1. Provide out-of-school time opportunities for academic enrichment, including tutorial services to help students (particularly those in high-poverty areas and who attend low- performing schools) meet state and local performance standards in core academic subjects such as reading, mathematics, and science. 2. Offer students a broad array of additional out-of-school time services, programs, and activities—youth development activities; drug- and violence-prevention programs; counseling programs; art, music, and recreation programs; technology education programs; and character education programs—designed to reinforce and complement the regular academic program of participating students. 3. Offer families of students served by community learning centers opportunities for literacy and related educational development. The reauthorization of the 21st CCLC program also resulted in a series of changes to its administration, eligibility requirements, and primary activity emphasis and target population: 1. Transferal of program administration from the federal to the state level—Under the reauthorization, responsibility for administering the 21st CCLC program was turned over to the state education agency (SEA) in each state or territory. Each year all SEAs receive an annual formula allocation to fund 21st CCLC programs in their respective states. SEAs are obligated to allocate 21st CCLC funds to local organizations by holding competitive request for proposal (RFP) processes. Under the federal discretionary grant program, the Department of Education (ED) directly held competitions, awarded grants, and directly monitored grantee performance. 2. Expansion of eligibility to additional entities—Provisions outlined in the reauthorizing legislation expanded subgrant eligibility to all public and private organizations. Under the federal discretionary grant program, only public schools or LEAs could receive grants directly. 3. Focusing services on academic enrichment opportunities—As part of the reauthorization, entities receiving a state-administered 21st CCLC grant must provide academic enrichment activities to students participating in center programming. Broadly defined, academic enrichment activities expand on students’ learning in ways that differ from the methods used during the school day. They often are interactive and project focused. They Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—2 enhance a student’s education by bringing new concepts to light or by using old concepts in new ways. These activities are fun for the student, but they also impart knowledge. They allow the participants to apply knowledge and skills stressed in school to real-life experiences. It is expected that local grantees will implement academic enrichment activities that will help students meet both state and local standards in the core content areas such as reading, mathematics, and science. 4. Targeting services to poor and low-performing schools—Under the reauthorization, states are required to award grants only to applicants that primarily will serve students who attend schools with a high concentration of poor students. To reinforce this requirement and to encourage the development of collaborations between local education agencies and other organizations, states also are required to give priority to applications for projects that will serve children in schools designated as in need of improvement under Title I and that are submitted jointly by school districts receiving Title I funds and public or private community-based organizations. The primary purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the 21st CCLC program as it exists under state administration. This report will explore how states are using the discretion afforded to them to implement their statewide programs, what services and activities are being provided by 21st CCLC grantees across the country, who is participating in grant-funded activities, and what progress is being made in achieving the performance indicators associated with the 21st CCLC program. It is important to point out that this report is meant to be a purely descriptive look at the 21st CCLC program. It is intended that the information presented here will provide a greater understanding of the nature of the state-administered 21st CCLC programs from a national perspective. 21st CCLC Profile and Performance Information Collection System (PPICS) All of the information outlined in this report was obtained from the 21st CCLC Profile and Performance Information Collection System (PPICS). Funded by ED, PPICS is a Web-based data-collection system designed to capture information regarding state-administered 21st CCLC programs. PPICS exists to meet four primary purposes: 1. To obtain the data necessary to report on the Government Performance and Reporting Act (GPRA) of 1993 indicators for the 21st CCLC program 2. To obtain information that will allow ED to monitor how the program is operating under state administration 3. To provide ED staff with the capacity to respond to congressional, Office of Management and Business, and other departmental inquiries about the program 4. To provide state 21st CCLC staff with a series of system-supported reports and related features that facilitate their ability to use data to assess the performance of grantees in their state and to inform related monitoring, evaluation, and technical assistance efforts Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—3 There are four data-entry modules that make up PPICS: 1. Competition Overview 2. Grantee Profile 3. Annual Performance Report (APR) 4. State Activities Each of these modules is discussed in further detail below. Purpose of the Competition Overview Module The purpose of the Competition Overview module is to obtain: (1) basic descriptive information from states about the outcomes of a given subgrant competition (e.g., number of applicants, number of grants awarded) held in a state to award new 21st CCLC grants, and (2) information about the performance indicators and priorities employed in a state in structuring its statewide program. This report examines Competition Overview records associated with RFP processes undertaken by states that resulted in the awarding of new 21st CCLC grants in 2004. Competition Overview records in PPICS were complete (i.e., all mandatory fields had been completed by the responding state) for 58 of the 59 competitions held by states during 2004. Purpose of the Grantee Profile Module The purpose of the Grantee Profile module is to collect basic information about 21st CCLC grantees, the proposed objectives and community partners associated with a given project, the activities grantees propose to deliver at each of their centers, and the students and family members they intend to serve. The information housed in the Grantee Profile module of PPICS is meant to provide information about what is presently true about a given grantee’s 21st CCLC operations, or if a grantee has not yet begun operations, what the grantee intends to do in the way of service provision. The information provided in completing the Grantee Profile serves to: • Support federal efforts to obtain a complete, updated picture of the full domain of 21st CCLC grantees and the characteristics of their programs. • Reduce data-entry redundancy by prepopulating certain sections of the APR module of PPICS. This will make the APR process a more streamlined and less intense process for 21st CCLC grantees. • Allow state users of the system to better assess how an individual program has changed over time as modifications are made to better respond to the needs of center attendees. In this report, Grantee Profile data are outlined for the 2,729 active 21st CCLC grantees that received a state-administered 21st CCLC grant through December 2004. Grantee Profile records were complete for 87 percent of grantees funded during this period. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—4 Purpose of the APR Module The purposes of the APR module are (1) to collect data from 21st CCLC grantees on progress made during the preceding year in meeting their project objectives; (2) to collect data on what elements characterized center operation during the reporting period, including the student and adult populations served; and (3) to collect data that address the GPRA performance indicators for the 21st CCLC program. In order for a grantee’s APR to be complete, three primary categories of information need to be supplied: 1. Objectives (to what extent the grantees accomplished what they intended to with 21st CCLC funds) 2. Partners (what entities contributed to the program during the reporting period and the nature of their contribution) 3. Centers (center location, hours of operation, activities provided, population served, impact data) Data collected at the center level on the APR also is utilized to inform how well the program is meeting the GPRA indicators associated with the program. Outlined below are the measures that have been defined to evaluate performance on the GPRA indicators associated with the 21st CCLC program: 1. Percentage of regular program participants whose mathematics or English grades improved from fall to spring 2. Percentage of regular program participants who meet or exceed the proficient level of performance on state assessments in reading and language arts and mathematics (This measure was in the process of being phased out during the development of the APR to be replaced by the following: Percentage of regular program participants whose achievement test scores improve from not proficient to proficient or above on state assessments. Only data corresponding to the initial indicator were collected during the 2003–04 APR reporting process.) 3. Percentage of regular program participants with teacher-reported improvement in homework completion and class participation 4. Percentage of students with teacher-reported improvements in student behavior 5. Percentage of 21st CCLCs reporting emphasis in at least one core academic area 6. Percentage of 21st CCLCs offering enrichment and support activities in technology 7. Percentage of 21st CCLCs offering enrichment and support activities in other areas APR data are presented in this report for the 1,267 grantees that needed to submit APR data for activities undertaken during the 2003–04 school year. APR records were complete for 88 percent of the grantees that needed to submit these APR data. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—5 Purpose of the State Activities Module The purpose of the State Activities module is to collect data on how an SEA used its prior fiscal year’s 2 percent administrative allocation and 3 percent training and/or evaluation allocation to support the 21st CCLC program in its state. The data outlined in this report correspond to how SEAs allocated their FY 2003 allocations. Of the 53 SEAs required to submit PPICS data, 52 had complete State Activities records for FY 2003. Report Organization This report is organized into six primary sections, each of which present information about the 21st CCLC program from a national perspective: 1. State Competitions and Activities 2. Grantee and Center Characteristics 3. Structural Features and Operations 4. Programming 5. Attendance 6. Student Achievement and Academic Behavioral Outcomes In addition, Appendix A of this report contains a series of tables that provide select competition, grantee, and center characteristics as well as outcome data for each of the 53 state-administered 21st CCLC programs. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—6 Section 1: State Competitions and Activities Employing the discretion afforded to them as the result of NCLB, SEAs have the opportunity to establish policies, procedures, and standards that shape the structural features and programming of 21st CCLCs funded in their state. One of the primary ways states exercise this discretion are the requirements and priorities they embed in the competitive RFP processes they implement to award new 21st CCLC grants. In addition, the manner in which SEAs utilize administrative allocations to support monitoring and evaluation efforts, technical assistance, and training also help establish the expectations centers are asked to conform to and the overall context of service delivery. This section of the report summarizes both avenues of state involvement, beginning with the subgrant competition process. In the 2004 calendar year, 51 SEAs (or simply “states”) ran a total of 60 competitions. A competition is an opportunity for organizations to apply for a subgrant to operate a 21st CCLC program. Forty-four states ran one competition, six states ran two, and one state (California) ran four. SEAs running competitions in 2004 comprised 49 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Because Puerto Rico has not completed the Competition Overview as of this report, the data in this report are based on 59 competitions. Two SEAs, Indiana and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, did not run competitions during 2004. Characteristics of Subgrant Competitions States have the discretion to shape subgrant competitions in a variety of ways, such as specifying competitive priorities and developing a statewide monitoring and evaluation plan consisting of state-defined performance indicators that grantees will need to conform to in the operation of their 21st CCLC–funded programs. The following section describes how states employed each of these methods to shape their subgrant competitions. Adoption of Performance Indicators In compliance with the GPRA, four general categories of performance indicators have been specified by ED that will be utilized to assess the extent to which the program is meeting its statutorily authorized purposes. These GPRA indicators specify requirements and target performance levels in terms of: (1) improvement in student achievement; (2) improvement in student academic behavior; (3) the provision of academic enrichment offerings, with a special emphasis on enrichment opportunities in technology; and (4) the degree to which centers emphasize one or more core academic areas. Each performance indicator is a measure of the effectiveness of the program in achieving one of its goals. In its application to ED, a state must describe the performance indicators and performance measures it will use to evaluate local programs and activities. States are required to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of programs and activities provided with 21st CCLC funds in light of the performance indicators and measures adopted by the SEA. Figure 1 describes the extent to which states adopted the performance indicators that grantees receiving new 21st CCLC grants as the result of subgrant competitions in 2004 will be held accountable to in the operation of their programs. Table 1 details the types of performance indicators. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—7 Figure 1. Frequency of State Adoption of Performance Indicators of Various Types 51 47 40 44 42 12 20 22 16 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 TESTCLASSATTENDCTRBEHGRADSTUPAROTHER Performance Indicators Number of Competitions Note: Based on 59 competitions Table 1. Types of Performances Indicators in Detail Indicator Code Indicator Type TEST Student achievement on standardized tests CLASS Student classroom performance ATTEND Student attendance during the regular school day CTR Student attendance or retention in center activities BEH Student behavior (e.g., decreased disciplinary actions and suspensions) GRAD Graduation rates STU Student satisfaction with center activities and services PAR Parent satisfaction with center activities and services OTHER Other Key Points Related to State Adoption of Performance Indicators • The vast majority of states adopted some type of indicator of academic achievement, either achievement tests (51 of 59 competitions) or classroom performance (47 of 59 competitions). • Most states adopted some measure of school behavior, either school attendance (40 of 59 of competitions) or discipline-related information (42 of 59 competitions). About one fifth of competitions indicated that grantees track the graduation rates of their attendees. • About one third of all subgrant competitions adopted indicators of student and parent satisfaction with the program. • Two thirds of competitions adopted student attendance in center activities as an indicator. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—8 Priorities Specified by States in RFPs States had the discretion to set both mandatory and optional funding priorities for the competitions administered during 2004. In PPICS, a mandatory priority was defined as a condition specified in the RFP that an applying entity must meet in order to be eligible for 21st CCLC funding, while an optional priority is a condition specified in the RFP that provides an applicant with a competitive edge in the subgrant competition (e.g., an additional 20 points is added to an applicant’s final score if it proposes to offer programming to reduce obesity). These funding priorities have a considerable influence on the structural features and programming objectives of grantees. In addition to the discretion afforded to states in establishing competitive priorities, there is one mandatory priority that all SEAs must incorporate into their subgrant processes. According to the 21st CCLC nonregulatory guidance, “States must give competitive priority to applications that both propose to serve students who attend schools identified for improvement (pursuant to Section 1116 of Title I) and that are submitted jointly between at least one LEA receiving funds under Title I, Part A, and at least one public or private community organization.” Reflecting this guidance, 57 out of 59 RFP competitions met this requirement by specifying either a joint application or a community-based organization partnership as a mandatory or optional priority. Other key points related to the manner in which states employed priorities in the subgrant process include the following: • In 45 of the 59 competitions administered by states during 2004, proposing to provide services in at least one core academic area (e.g., reading and language arts, mathematics, science) was mandatory in order to be eligible for funding. • In 28 of the competitions, providing educational opportunities for adult family members was identified as being a mandatory priority for applicants while in another 19 competitions, applicants proposing to serve adult family members were afforded a competitive edge in the subgrant competition. • In 31 competitions, providing services to improve academic achievement of LEP students was identified as being an optional priority. Outcomes of Subgrant Competitions This section describes basic data about the outcome of subgrant competitions held in 2004, including the rate at which applicants received funding, the representation of different types of organizations among applicants and awardees, and contract length. Applicant Funding Rates According to the 59 complete Competition Overview records in PPICS associated with 2004, 3,469 organizations applied for subgrants, and 1,327 of these received awards; a funding rate of 38 percent. The following points characterize the typical outcomes of the 59 state competitions held in 2004: Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—9 • When the funding rates of all 59 state competitions are considered, the median funding rate was 42 percent. The funding rate of half of the competitions fell between 27 percent and 62 percent; one quarter of competitions had funding rates above this range, and one quarter had rates below it. • Applicants requested a total of $1,260,462,271 in first-year funds while $460,186,892 was actually awarded to support the initial year of operation of new grantees funded in 2004, for a dollar-based funding rate of 37 percent. • Across all state competitions, the median dollar-based funding rate was 42 percent, with a range of 24 percent to 54 percent encompassing the middle half of the states. Proportion of Applicants and Grantees From Different Types of Organizations One of the significant modifications detailed in the reauthorizing legislation was to expand eligibility of 21st CCLC funding to include public and private youth-serving organizations. Figure 2 describes the prevalence of different types of organizations among applicants and grantees for competitions held in 2004. Table 2 details the types of organizations. Figure 2. Proportion of Applicants From Different Types of Organizations Percent of Total Number 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% District Comuty. Faith Charter Coll./U. Nat’l NP Other Applicants Grantees Note: Based on 3381 applicants Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—10 Table 2. Types of Organizations in Detail Organization Code Organization Type District School district Comuty. Community-based or other nonprofit organization Faith Faith-based organization Charter Charter school Coll./U. College or university Nat’l NP Nationally affiliated nonprofit agency Other Other Key Points Associated With Subgrant Competition Outcomes • School districts are by far the most frequent applicants and grantees. School districts compose 61 percent of applicants and 69 percent of actual grantees. • Community-based organizations are the next most prevalent type, composing 17 percent of applicants and 15 percent of grantees. • All other organization types compose 21 percent of applicants, yet just 16 percent of grantees. Proportion of Grants of Different Lengths The reauthorization of this program expanded the maximum grant length from three to five years. With a longer duration of guaranteed funding, a given center will have a greater opportunity to secure external funding with which to sustain the program after the grant has expired. Figure 3 shows the impact of this change in policy on lengths of actual grants awarded to grantees in 2004 across all states. A grant with a length of “3 + 2” has an initial funding period of three years with an option to renew funding for an additional two years. Figure 3. Number of Competitions Awarding Grants of Different Lengths 13 4 32 10 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 3 4 5 3 + 2Number of Competitions Grant Length (Years) Note: Based on 59 competitions Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—11 Key Point Related to Grant Length The most frequent grant length is five years, indicating that the change in the policy regarding maximum grant length had a significant impact on ensuring the longevity of these programs. State Activities As mentioned at the outset, states also have the capacity to shape the context of programming in their state through monitoring and evaluation efforts and the provision of training and technical assistance to their 21st CCLC grantees. It is useful to know the extent to which states are devoting resources to each of these types of administrative and support services, given that the authorizing legislation contains provisions that reserve a portion of a state’s allocation to be utilized for these purposes. This section examines the extent to which states have devoted their resources to such tasks. Allocation of Five Percent Moneys A portion of the grant to each state could be set aside for various uses by the SEA. Up to 2 percent of the grant could be allotted to administrative costs such as the following: • Administrative costs of carrying out the responsibilities of this program • Establishing and implementing a peer review process for grant applications • Supervising the awarding of funds to eligible organizations Up to 3 percent of the state’s allocation for the 21st CCLC program could be allotted for the following training, technical assistance, and evaluation services: • Monitoring and evaluation of programs and activities • Providing capacity building, training, and technical assistance • Conducting a comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of programs and activities • Providing training and technical assistance to eligible entities who are applicants for, or recipients of, awards Key Point Related to State Activities Most states allocated the full 2 percent and 3 percent allotments. Ninety-four percent of states allocated their entire 2 percent allotment, and 92 percent allocated their entire 3 percent allotment. It is important to note that PPICS requested information on the extent to which state had allocated their 2 percent and 3 percent funds. No information was collected from states on the actual expenditure of the funds. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—12 Allocation of Funds for Training, Technical Assistance, and Evaluation Services Figure 4 describes the frequency with which states allocated their 3 percent moneys to specific types of services: • Applicant Training: Providing training and technical assistance to eligible entities that are applicants for awards • Grantee Training: Providing training and technical assistance to eligible entities that are recipients of awards • Monitoring: Monitoring and evaluation of programs and activities • Evaluation: Conducting a comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of programs and activities • Data System: Development or purchase of software or data system for the purpose of monitoring and evaluation Figure 4. Percentage of States Allocating Funds for Types of Training, Assistance, and Evaluation Services 100 100 96 85 57 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Applicant Training Grantee Training Monitoring Evaluation Data System Percent of States Types of Services Note: Data based on 53 SEAs Key Point Related to Training, Assistance, and Evaluation Services All or nearly all states report allocating funds to support applicant and grantee training, along with monitoring of programs and activities. Training and Technical Assistance to Grantees Figure 5 indicates the frequency with which states provided various types of training and technical assistance to grantees. The figure illustrates that the different categories of assistance are fairly comparable in their frequency with which states provide them to grantees. Table 3 details the types of training provided to grantees. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—13 Figure 5. Percentage of States Providing Types of Technical Assistance and Training to Grantees 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Fiscal Reporting Academic Community Sustainability Percentage of States Types of Technical Assistance 100% 91 98 91 92 83 Note: Data based on 53 SEAs Table 3. Types of Training in Detail Training Code Training Type Fiscal Fiscal management and administration Reporting Meeting state reporting or evaluation requirements Academic Enhancing academic content Community Enhancing community involvement and collaboration Sustainability Promoting program sustainability Key Points Related to Training and Technical Assistance • At least 90 percent of all SEAs offered training for fiscal management, reporting and evaluation requirements, enhancing academic content, and enhancing community involvement. • Slightly more than 80 percent of SEAs reported offering training to promote program sustainability. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—14 Section 2: Grantee and Center Characteristics This section describes basic characteristics of grantees and centers funded by SEAs from the first round of awards made during 2002 to the most recent awards made in 2004. There were 2,729 grants awarded during this period that presently fund a total 8,448 centers nationwide. The figures and tables presented in this section provide additional details about these grantees and centers, their length of time in existence, the grade levels they intend to serve, and the number of schools that provide students to a given 21st CCLC. In PPICS, 21st CCLC centers are defined as the physical location where grant-funded services and activities are provided to participating students and adults. A center offers academic, artistic, and cultural enrichment opportunities to students and their families during nonschool hours (before or after school) or periods when school is not in session (e.g., holidays, weekends, summer recess). A center is characterized by defined hours of operation; a dedicated staff that plans, facilitates, and supervises program activities; and an administrative structure that may include a position akin to a center coordinator. A 21st CCLC grant must fund at least one 21st CCLC center. In similar fashion, a grantee is defined in PPICS as the entity serving as the fiduciary agent for a given 21st CCLC grant. Grantee and Center Organization Type As articulated both in the reauthorizing legislation and the nonregulatory guidance, the 21st CCLC program encourages partnerships between grantees and diverse community stakeholders. Congruent with this goal, the passage of the NCLB Act expanded funding eligibility to include public and private educational and youth-serving organizations in addition to schools. Figure 6 highlights the impact of this change by displaying the percentage of grantees in each organization type. Table 4 details the types of organizations. Figure 6. Percentage of Grantees by Organization Type 70% 80% 60% 50% 40% 30% 10% 20% Percent of Total Grantees 0% Organization Type 68 15 4 3 2 2 2 5 SchDist Comm. NANPA Agency Coll./U. Charter Faith Other Note: Grantees providing data: 2,677 (98 percent reporting) Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—15 Table 4. Types of Grantee Organizations in Detail Code Grantee Organization Type SchDist School district Comm. Community-based organization NANPA Nationally affiliated nonprofit agency (e.g., Boys & Girls Clubs, YMCA/YWCA) Agency Regional or intermediate education agency Coll./U. College or university Charter Charter school Faith Faith-based organization Other Bureau of Indian Affairs, for-profit corporation, health-based organization, library, museum, park district, private school, other unit of government, other Key Points Related to Grantee Organization Type • School districts are the most represented organization type, serving as the fiscal agent on 68 percent of all 21st CCLC grants. • Community-based organizations (15 percent) and nationally affiliated nonprofit agencies (4 percent) collectively make up 19 percent of all grantees. The remaining 13 percent of grantees represent a wide variety of other organization types. Center Organization Type As might be expected, the extent to which different types of organizations serve as centers largely parallels the distribution pattern for grantees, with 90 percent of centers identified as being schools. Of the remaining organization types, only community-based organizations (3.5 percent), nationally affiliated nonprofit agencies (1.8 percent), and faith-based organizations (1.3 percent) constitute at least 1 percent of centers, indicating that even centers funded by a grant obtained by a nonschool entity often are housed in schools. Of all of the centers, 8,345 provided data for this analysis (98.8 percent). Centers Operating Afterschool Programs Before Receiving a 21st CCLC Grant Although the largest number of grantees receiving state-administered 21st CCLC grants began operating during the 2003–04 school year, many sites had been operating afterschool programs in some fashion prior to receiving their state-administered 21st CCLC grant. The following analysis describes the extent to which centers eventually funded by a state-administered 21st CCLC grant provided out-of-school time services at the site in question prior to receiving the grant. Given the significant role the federal 21st CCLC discretionary grant program played in funding afterschool programs, Figure 7 also differentiates between centers that previously received funds through the federal 21st CCLC program and those that did not. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—16 Figure 7. Centers Operating Afterschool Programs Before Receiving a State 21st CCLC Grant 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 No prior program Fewer than 2 years 2–5 years 6–10 years More than 10 years Number of CentersNo Yes Recipient of Federal 21st CCLC Funds Length of Program Note: Centers providing data: 7,446 (88 percent reporting) Key Points Related to Previous Federal Funding • Most centers (82 percent) had not been funded as part of a federal 21st CCLC discretionary grant prior to receiving state-administered 21st CCLC grants. • About half of centers (53 percent) that did not receive federal 21st CCLC funds had no program prior to receiving a state-administered grant. In other words, 44 percent of all centers did not provide any afterschool services prior to receiving a state-administered 21st CCLC grant. • As may be expected, 78 percent of centers that received 21st CCLC funding under the federal discretionary grant reported being in operation between two and five years prior to receiving a state-administered grant. Grade Levels Served by Centers The 21st CCLC programs are available to all grade levels (prekindergarten through Grade 12). In order to know where this program is having an impact, it is important to understand what grade levels the centers have planned to target. Figure 8 shows the relative frequency of grade levels that centers intend to serve through the provision of 21st CCLC–funded activities and services. Grade levels are categorized as elementary (Grades PK–6), middle (Grades 6–8), high (Grades 9–12), and the combinations of elementary/middle (Elem/Mid) and middle/high (Mid/High) school students. Centers that intend to serve a grade range in which sixth grade is the highest are considered to be elementary schools. Centers that intend to serve a grade range between sixth and eighth grade are considered to be middle schools. Centers serving only sixth graders are counted as middle school programs (there were 22 such centers).While the “other” category includes programs that serve elementary- and high school–age students (but not middle school– age students), the vast majority of the schools represented in this category serve all three main grade-level categories. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—17 Figure 8. Percentage of Centers by Targeted Grade Levels 53 12 20 4 5 6 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Elementary Elem/Mid Middle Mid/High High Other Percentage of Centers Grade Levels Note: Centers providing data: 7,526 (89 percent reporting) Key Points Related to Grade Levels Targeted • Elementary school students are the group most frequently targeted for services by centers. About half of centers serve elementary school students exclusively, and at least two thirds of all centers serve some elementary students. • About 36 percent of centers serve at least some middle school students, but just more than half of these centers target middle school students exclusively. The “other” category includes programs that serve only elementary and high school students as well as programs that serve elementary, middle, and high school students. Thus, the percentage of centers serving middle school students may be higher than this number. • Only 15 percent of centers serve at least some high school students, and only 5 percent of centers target high school students exclusively. Centers and Feeder Schools In PPICS, a feeder school is any school attended by 21st CCLC participants. This is different from the normal concept of feeder schools as schools that graduate their students into schools serving higher grades (i.e., an elementary school that feeds into a middle school). In this case, any school that is attended by a program participant is considered a feeder school. Many centers are their own feeder school, but there are also some programs that serve students from a number of different schools either at a school- or community-based location. Figure 9 indicates the percentage of centers with given numbers of feeder schools. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—18 Figure 9. Prevalence of Number of Feeder Schools per Center 85 6 4 2 4 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Three Four Five or more Percentage of Centers One Two Number of Schools Note: Centers providing data: 7,510 (89 percent reporting) Key Point Related to Feeder Schools Of all centers, 85 percent have only one feeder school. Usually, this occurs with programs located at the school attended by all of their participants. Note that 90 percent of centers are schools themselves. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—19 Section 3: Structural Features and Operations Structural features of an afterschool program refer to the context and setting in which out-ofschool time services are being provided. Factors such as staffing, hours of operation, financial resources, and community partnerships are all considered to be associated with the structural features of a 21st CCLC program. These features can impact both the quality of the programming being offered at a given center and the extent to which student attendees are likely to form positive relationships with both peers and staff. Sources of Grantee Funding One challenge of sustaining a 21st CCLC is to supplement and, when appropriate, coordinate grant-funded efforts with funding from other federal, state, local, and foundation sources. The development of a diversified funding base is crucial to ensuring the continued existence of the program against the possible loss of one funding stream. Figure 10 depicts the percentage of grantees that receive and use funds from various funding source categories for their 21st CCLC program. Some responses have been combined (without duplication) to create the “other” categories. “Other Title I Funding” includes Even Start, School Dropout Prevention Program, Early Reading First, Migrant Education Program, and all Title I Funding with the exception of Supplemental Educational Services. “Other Federal Sources” includes Upward Bound, GEAR UP, Safe Schools/Healthy Students, the Carol M. White Physical Education Program, mentoring grants, and other federal sources. Figure 10. Percentage of Grantees Using External Funding Sources 9 27 16 15 34 16 28 24 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Supplemental Educational Services Other Title I Funding Safe and Drug-Free Schools Foundation Funding Funding From the Local School District(s) Other Federal Sources Other State Sources Other Percentage of Grantees External Funding Sources Note: Grantees providing data: 2,624 (96 percent reporting) Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—20 Key Points Related to Sources of Funding • Overall, 72 percent of grantees had at least one funding source other than the 21st CCLC program. Grantees funding centers that operated afterschool programs prior to the state- administered 21st CCLC grant was received are more likely to report having other sources of funding (78 percent) than grantees that fund centers with no prior experience running afterschool programs (62 percent). • The most common additional funding source was the local school district (funding about one third of all 21st CCLC programs), followed by other state sources (28 percent) and Title I funding (27 percent, excluding Supplemental Educational Services). The Supplemental Educational Services program (part of Title I but not included in the “Other Title I Funding” category), provided funding to 9 percent of 21st CCLC grantees. • Other federal funding, foundation funding, and the Safe and Drug-Free Schools program each provided funding to around 15 percent of 21st CCLC grantees. • On average, grantees reporting having two other funding sources. Of grantees reporting at least one external funding source, 66 percent listed fewer than three additional sources. Partnerships Encouraging partnerships between schools and other organizations is an important component of the 21st CCLC program. Many states required their grantees to have a letter of commitment from at least one partner in order to submit a proposal for funding. Partnerships provide grantees with connections to the community and additional resources that may not be otherwise available to the program. This section examines the characteristics of the partners with whom grantees work, as reported in the Grantee Profile. Frequency of Partnerships With Different Organization Types Different types of partners offer different resources and opportunities for 21st CCLC programs. Figure 11 displays the proportion of partners that are of each organization type. These organization types are categorized differently from those listed in Section 2 describing grantees and centers. Table 5 details the types of organizations. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—21 Figure 11. Prevalence of Partners by Organization Type 23 8 3 11 4 12 3 10 9 17 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Comm. Coll./U. Faith Profit Health NANPA Park SchDist GovUnt Other Percent of Partners Partner Organization Types Note: Grantees providing data on at least one partner: 2,542 (93.1 percent); partner data reported: 19,575 (99.7 percent) Table 5. Types of Partner Organizations in Detail Code Partner Organization Type Comm. Community-based organization Coll./U. College or university Faith Faith-based organization Profit For-profit entity Health Health-based organization (e.g., hospital, clinic) NANPA Nationally affiliated nonprofit agency (e.g., Boys & Girls Clubs, YMCA/YWCA) Park Park or recreation district SchDist School district GovUnt Other unit of city or county government Other Bureau of Indian Affairs, charter school, regional or intermediate education agency, library, museum, private school, other Key Points Regarding Types of Partners • Community-based organizations are the most represented organization type, making up more than 23 percent of all partners. The second most frequent type, nationally affiliated nonprofit agencies, compose about 12 percent of partners. • For-profit entities represent the third largest category of partners associated with 21st CCLC program, making up 11 percent of all partners nationwide. • School districts make up about 10 percent of all partners. This number is fairly low because school districts are much more likely to be the fiscal agent on a grant. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—22 Prevalence of Subcontracts Among Partners The reauthorizing legislation mandates that states adopt a priority that gives preference to applications jointly submitted by LEAs and community-based organizations. For this reason, it is not surprising that most 21st CCLC programs partner with other organizations to provide services and resources for their participants. Most partners associated with 21st CCLC programs contribute to the project by providing services and resources not directly funded by the 21st CCLC grant. A smaller proportion of 21st CCLC programs also rely upon subcontractors. A subcontractor is any organization under contract with the grantee to provide 21st CCLC grant- funded activities or services. For data collection purposes, subcontractors are considered a type of partner in PPICS. The following are some key points about partners and subcontractors: • Overall, about 28 percent of all partners were subcontractors. • The median grantee had six partners and one subcontractor. The percentage of partners that were subcontractors varied according to partner type. Figure 12 displays what percentage of each partner type are subcontractors. Table 6 details the types of partner organizations. Figure 12. Percentage of Partners of Each Type That Are Subcontractors 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 38 39 39 24 171335 17 9 24 Comm. Coll./U. Faith Profit Health NANPA Park SchDist GovUnit Other Partner Organizations Percent of Partners Note: Grantees providing data on at least one partner: 2,542 (93.1 percent); partner data reported: 19,575 (99.7 percent) Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—23 Table 6. Types of Partner Organizations in Detail Code Partner Organization Types Comm. Community-based organization Coll./U. College or university Faith Faith-based organization Profit For-profit entity Health Health-based organization (e.g., hospital, clinic) NANPA Nationally affiliated nonprofit agency (e.g., Boys & Girls Clubs, YMCA/YWCA) Park Park or recreation district SchDist School district GovUnit Other unit of city or county government Other Bureau of Indian Affairs, charter school, regional or intermediate education agency, library, museum, private school, other Key Points Related to Subcontractors • Subcontractors are most prevalent among partnerships with for-profit entities, park districts, community-based organizations, and nationally affiliated nonprofit agencies; 35 percent to 39 percent of partners in these categories hold 21st CCLC–funded subcontracts. • One might expect that for-profit entities would have an even higher percentage of being subcontractors than the 39 percent reported here. The inclusion of for-profit entities such as local banks and small businesses that donate goods and services to the project may have lowered the percentage of partners identified as being subcontractors. Type of Partner Contribution Partner contributions vary greatly depending on the resources they have available and the program’s needs. In any given program, one partner may deliver services directly to participants while another may provide goods or materials, evaluation services, or a specific staff member. Figure 13 displays the percentage of subcontractors and nonsubcontracting partners providing each contribution type. The contribution type services is defined as programming- and activity- related services, and the contribution type goods is defined as goods and materials. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—24 Figure 13. Percentage of Partners Providing Different Types of Contributions Evaluation ProgrammingFunding Types of Contributions Volunteer Staff 9 9 66 47 40 24 26 18 9 85 54 25 60 21 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Goods Paid Staff Other Percent of Partners Nonsubcontractors Subcontractors Note: Grantees providing data on at least one partner: 1,159 (91.5 percent); partner data reported: 9,268 (99.9 percent) Key Points Related to Partner Contribution • The most common partnership contribution was to provide programming for the 21st CCLC. • Evaluation and funding were the least common contributions of partners. • As would be expected, subcontractors were much more likely to provide paid staff than volunteer staff. Operations One of the goals of the 21st CCLC program is to provide students with productive and engaging activities at times when they would otherwise be without adult supervision. The following section describes the amount of time and time of day that centers intended to, and did, offer programming. Anticipated Hours of Center Operation and Grade Levels Served Figure 14 displays the percentage of centers serving students in the indicated grade levels that reported offering services before, during, or after school; on the weekends; or during the summer. Note that programs serving prekindergarten students are included in the elementary category. Sixteen programs planned to serve only prekindergarten students. The statute specifically indicates that services are to be provided outside the regular school day or during periods when school is not in session (e.g., before school, after school, evenings, weekends, holidays, or summer). However, activities targeting prekindergarten children and adult family members may take place during regular school hours as these times may be the most suitable Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—25 for serving these populations. The information contained in Figure 14 is taken from the Grantee Profile module of PPICS and therefore represents what the grantees envision their hours of operation to be. Figure 14. Percentage of Centers Serving Various School Levels at Various Times 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Elem. Elem/Mid Middle Mid/High High Other Before During After Weekend Summer School Levels Percent of Centers Note: Centers providing data: 7,526 (89 percent reporting) Key Points Related to Time of Operation and Grade Levels Served • Almost all programs at all grade levels offered services during the afterschool hours. • High school–age programs and those serving both middle and high schools are more likely to offer weekend hours. • The percentage of centers offering services during the summer ranged from 60 percent to 70 percent across the five main categories of school level. Average Hours, Days, and Weeks of Operation In the APR, centers identified the number of hours and days per week that they operated during the 2003–04 school year. Figures 15 and 16 summarize the proportion of centers that fall into the given ranges of hours and days of operation. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—26 Figure 15. Percentage of Centers Open by Hours per Week 9 24 39 16 13 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 1–5 6–10 11–15 16–20 21 or more Percentage of Centers Hours per Week Note: Centers providing data: 3,633 (99.8 percent reporting) Figure 16. Percentage of Centers Operating by Days per Week Note: Centers providing data: 3,632 (99.8 percent reporting) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 3 5 33 54 4 0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Percentage of Centers Days per Week Figure 17 outlines the number of weeks during the 2003–04 school year centers reported being in operation. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—27 Figure 17. Percentage of Centers Open by Weeks per Year Percentage of Centers 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 1 3 8 20 36 28 5 1–7 8–14 15–21 22–28 29–35 36–42 43 or more Weeks per Year Note: Centers providing data: 3,631 (99.7 percent reporting) Key Points Related to Hours and Days of Operation • About 67 percent of centers reported being open 11 hours or more per week. • About 91 percent of centers reported being open four or more days per week. • About 69 percent of centers reported being open 29 or more weeks during the 2003–04 school year. Staffing As part of the APR, information was obtained on the number of 21st CCLC staff of various types that regularly staffed centers during the 2003–04 school year. These types reflected the background and training of the staff. Moreover, centers indicated what number of each type were paid staff and what number were volunteer. The typical center reported having 13 paid and 8 volunteer staff during the 2003–04 school year. Figure 18 indicates the total number of staff across all centers nationwide in a given category, divided into paid and volunteer staff. The category nonteaching school staff is defined as any school employee who is not a teacher. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—28 Figure 18. Number of Staff Members of Each Type (Paid and Volunteer) 0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 School-dayteachersCollegestudentsHigh schoolstudentsParentsYouthdevelopmentworkersOther community members Nonteachingschool staffOther Paid VolunteerNumber of Staff Type of Staff Note: Centers providing data: 3,616 (99.3 percent) Key Points Related to Staffing • School-day teachers are by far the highest proportion of afterschool staff. • School-day teachers, youth development workers, and nonteaching school staff are usually paid for their afterschool time while parents and other community members are usually volunteers. • Centers also reported on the extent of staff turnover by indicating the number of staff members who left the program and were replaced. On average, 10 percent of all paid staff per center left their positions and were replaced during the reporting period. This number may be a low estimate of total turnover, since programs may have had paid staff members who left but did not have their positions filled within the reporting period. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—29 Section 4: Programming The mission of the 21st CCLC program is to provide academic enrichment and other services and programs that reinforce and complement the regular academic program of participating students. Relying on information obtained as part of the 2003–04 APR, the following section describes the frequency with which centers provided the activities and services that composed their programming during the reporting period. Specifically, the section describes the proportion of centers that offered various activities and services and the hours per week each was offered. This information on programming is presented according to two broad rubrics for describing programming: (1) category of service delivery, or activities targeting a particular participant population; and (2) the subject areas or educational content addressed by the programming. Type of Services Offered by Centers When considering issues related to program quality, attributes associated with program content, the breadth of services and activities provided, the intentionality of program design, and processes to provide youth supports and opportunities should be explored. These facets of program delivery all get to the heart of how student attendees experience and are engaged by the activities and services provided by the center. A prerequisite to delving into these more nuanced dimensions of program quality is to have an overall view of what sort of programming the centers offered during the year. It is important to point out that activity information collected as part of the 2003–04 APR allowed respondents to classify a single activity both by category and subject area. For example, a center may have offered a rocketry club during the 2003–04 school year in which participants learn to build and launch rockets while also studying astronomy. In this case, this activity would be classifiable as an academic enrichment learning program (category) and as a science educational activity (subject area). A similar degree of flexibility was afforded to respondents when a single activity could be classified in more than one category. For example, an activity with both tutoring and mentoring components would be counted in both categories on the APR. Category of Activity or Service The common categories of activities offered during 21st CCLC programming undertaken during the 2003–04 school year are listed in Figure 19 and Table 7. These categories of activities reflect the mandate of the 21st CCLC program to promote academic achievement while at the same time providing access to enrichment and other youth development and support activities. Figure 19 shows the proportion of centers offering different categories of activities and services. Table 7 details the types of activities offered at the centers. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—30 Figure 19. Percentage of Centers Providing Services, by Category 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RemedEnrichTutor Mentor LEPRecTruantDrugFamilyCareerLibraryComServLeadPercentage of Centers Categories of Activities Note: Percentages are based on total number of centers reporting APR activity data by category. There were 3,583 centers reporting. Table 7. Types of Activities in Detail Label Category of Activity Remed Academic improvement and remediation programs Enrich Academic enrichment learning programs Tutor Tutoring and homework help Mentor Mentoring LEP Activities for limited-English-proficient students Rec Recreational activities Truant Activities that target students who have been truant, suspended, or expelled Drug Drug and violence prevention, counseling, and character education programs Family Programs that promote parental involvement and family literacy Career Career or job training Library Expanded library service hours ComServ Community service or service learning programs Lead Activities that promote youth leadership Key Points Related to Programming by Category • About 90 percent of centers offered academic enrichment learning programs, in accordance with one of the primary purposes expressed in the 21st CCLC mandate. It is reasonable to assume that some or all of the remaining 10 percent may have categorized their academic enrichment activities in some other category of academic service. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—31 • Academic assistance and recreational activities were the most prevalent, reflecting two other central goals of the 21st CCLC mandate. More than 85 percent of centers provided academic assistance in the form of tutoring or improvement and remediation programs. About 87 percent of centers offered recreational activities. • Approximately 60 percent of centers offered programs involving drug prevention and promoting parent involvement in children’s literacy. Subject Area of Activity or Service Figure 20 depicts the percentage of centers offering activities and services in each academic subject area, and Table 8 details the subject-area abbreviations. Figure 20. Percentage of Centers Providing Services, by Subject Percentage of Centers 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Reading Math Science Arts Business Telecom Cultural Health Activity Subject Areas Note: Percentages are based on total number of centers reporting APR activity data by subject area. There were 3,559 centers reporting. Table 8. Subject Area Activities in Detail Label Subject Area of Activity or Service Reading Reading and literacy education activities Math Mathematics education activities Science Science education activities Arts Arts and music education activities Business Entrepreneurial education programs Telecom Telecommunications and technology education programs Cultural Cultural activities and social studies Health Health- and nutrition-related activities Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—32 Key Points Related to Programming by Subject Area • Reading and mathematics education programs were provided by more than 90 percent of centers. This reflects the program’s mandate to enhance academic achievement in core curricular areas. • Although science education activities are provided by 69 percent of centers, this level is exceeded by activities involving arts and music and about equal to those including culture and social studies. Intensity of Program Offerings Center staff described the typical amount of time per week they offered different types of programming. The following analyses describe the intensity of programming in terms of the average number of hours per week. Figure 21 shows the average number of hours per week that centers offered different categories of activities and services. Only centers that offered programming in a given activity contributed data on the number of hours they offered it. Moreover, the estimated weekly number of hours refers to the time in which students participated in an activity, not the amount of time scheduled for it. Table 9 details the activity categories. Figure 21. Average Number of Hours Per Week of Service Provision, by Category Remed Tutor LEP TruantFamily Library Lead EnrichMentor Rec Drug CareerComServ Activity Categories Note: Percentages are based on total number of centers reporting APR activity data by category. There were 3,583 centers reporting. Table 9. Subject Area Activities in Detail 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Hours per Week Label Category of Activity Remed Academic improvement and remediation programs Enrich Academic enrichment learning programs Tutor Tutoring and homework help Mentor Mentoring LEP Activities for limited-English-proficient students Rec Recreational activities Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—33 Label Category of Activity Truant Activities that target students who have been truant, suspended, or expelled Drug Drug and violence prevention, counseling, and character education programs Family Programs that promote parental involvement and family literacy Career Career or job training Library Expanded library service hours ComServ Community service and service learning programs Lead Activities that promote youth leadership Key Points Related to Intensity for Programming by Category • Services addressing academic needs are among the most intensely offered. Academic remediation, enrichment, and tutoring are all typically offered at least six hours per week. • Recreational services are also among the most intensely offered type of programming, with an average of slightly more than six hours of programming during a typical week. • Programs that promote parental involvement were relatively prevalent, yet this programming is offered less intensely than most other categories. This seems to indicate that while many centers may have offered family programming, it may have been somewhat less frequent, of a lower duration, or more likely to have been cancelled than other activities. Figure 22 displays the average weekly provision of programming, as articulated by subject area. Table 10 details the subject area abbreviations. Figure 22. Average Number of Hours per Week of Service Provision, by Subject 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Reading Math Science Arts Business Telecom Cultural Health Hours per Week Educational Subject Areas Note: Percentages are based on total number of centers reporting APR activity data by subject area. There were 3,559 centers reporting. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—34 Table 10. Educational Subject Areas in Detail Label Subject Area of Activity or Service Reading Reading and literacy education activities Math Mathematics education activities Science Science education activities Arts Arts and music education activities Business Entrepreneurial education programs Telecom Telecommunications and technology education programs Cultural Cultural activities and social studies Health Health- and nutrition-related activities Key Points Related to Intensity of Programming by Subject Area • Reading and mathematics were the subjects of the most intensive programming, with an average of about six and a half hours per week of reading programming and about five and a half hours of mathematics programming per typical week. • Programming in science, the other core academic subject, was offered less intensely (an average of nearly four hours per week). This may reflect a lack of qualified staff or a lesser emphasis on this subject. • All other subjects of activities are provided on an average of three to four hours per week. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—35 Section 5: Attendance Attendance, as an intermediate outcome indicator, reflects the breadth and depth of exposure to afterschool programming. Grantees completing the APR for the 2003–04 school year were asked to identify: (1) the total number of students who participated in the center’s programming during the year and (2) the number of students meeting the definition of regular attendee by participating in 30 days or more of activity at a center during the 2003–04 school year. The former figure can be utilized as a measure of the breadth of a center’s reach, whereas the latter can be construed as a partial measure of how successful the center was in retaining students in center-provided services and activities across the reporting period. It is reasonable to assume that regular attendees are more likely to represent those participating students who have received a sufficient “dose” of the programming for it to have an impact on academic or behavioral outcomes. Yearly Attendance Totals The total number of attendees served each year is a measure of the size of an individual 21st CCLC program. The data reported by centers indicate a great deal of variation in the total number of attendees. Figure 23 provides an overall view of the range of attendance at centers active during the 2003–04 school year, describing total and regular attendees. Figure 23. Percentage of Centers Reporting Different Yearly Attendance Totals 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 0–50 51– 100 101– 150 151– 200 201– 250 251– 300 More than 300 All Attendees Regular Attendees Number of Attendees Percentage of Centers Note: Data based on 99.6 percent of centers (3,626 total) Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—36 Key Points Related to Attendance • About 43 percent of centers had fewer than 50 regular attendees, and about 20 percent had fewer than 50 total attendees. • Centers had considerably more total attendees than regular attendees. For example, the median number of regular attendees was 59, whereas the median number of total attendees was 105. Program Attendance as a Function of Student Characteristics One way of examining the reach of the 21st CCLC program is to examine the participation of students with different needs and backgrounds. The three analyses that follow examine attendance as a function of ethnicity, participation in special services, and gender. Figure 24 shows the proportion of program attendees who belong to different racial and ethnic categories. Figure 24. Racial/Ethnic Characteristics of Attendees 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Am. Indian Asian Black Percentage of AttendeesAll Attendees Regular Attendees Hispanic Hawaiian/ White Pacific Racial/Ethnic Backgrounds Note: Data based on 3,526 centers reporting (97 percent) Key Point Related to the Racial/Ethnic Group Make-Up of Attendees Several ethnic minorities are overrepresented relative to their proportion of the general population. This reflects the program’s focus on economically disadvantaged populations. What this analysis does not indicate is whether the distribution of attendees among racial and ethnic categories mirrors that of the feeder schools. Centers reported the number of students in their program who participated in the following special services or programs: • Limited English proficiency • Free or reduced-price lunch • Special needs or disabilities Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—37 The participation in these programs indicates likelihood that a student may be disadvantaged or academically at-risk. Figure 25 describes the percentage of attendees who belonged to each category. Figure 25. Percentage of Attendees Eligible for Special Services Note: Data represent 3,138 centers (86 percent) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Limited English Proficiency Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Special Needs or Disabilities All Attendees Regular Attendees Special Services Percent of Attendees Key Points Related to Special Program Participation • Nearly two thirds of regular attendees qualify for free or reduced-price lunch, a figure that is in line with the goals of the program to target low-income students. • About 17 percent of participants have limited English proficiency, and 8 percent have special needs or disabilities. It is also important to understand the degree to which the program achieves gender equity. Figure 26 depicts the gender distribution of regular attendees. The distribution of all attendees is nearly identical to the one shown above and therefore is not presented. Figure 26. Gender Characteristics of Regular Attendees 48% 49% 3% Male Female Unreported Note: Data based on 3,539 centers reporting (97 percent) Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—38 Key Point Related to Equity The chart demonstrates that the program has achieved gender equity. Attendance by Grade Level The 21st CCLC program can be targeted toward students at all grade levels. As depicted in Section 2 of this report, centers most typically gear their programs toward elementary students. The attendance data displayed in Figure 27 depicts the participation of students in various grade levels during the 2003–04 school year. In other words, the chart depicts the percentage of attendees (regular and all) who were in each grade. Figure 27. Attendance by Grade Level 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% PK K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Unknown All Attendees Regular Attendees Grade Level Percentage of Attendees Note: Data based on 3,513 centers reporting (96 percent) Key Point Related to Grade Level The prevalence of regular attendees in the program peaks in late elementary school, then drops off continuously through the middle school, Grades 6–8. This reflects the need for the young students to stay under regular adult supervision after school. As students reach the high school grades, there is a marked dropoff in attendance. This may reflect both the greater number of afterschool options for older students (including employment) and the decreased need for adult supervision. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—39 Section 6: Student Achievement and Academic Behavioral Outcomes The ultimate goal of the 21st CCLC program is to have a positive impact on student achievement and academic behaviors through the provision of academic enrichment and other services that reinforce and complement the regular academic program. This section presents information on the success of grantees in achieving this goal. This section, more specifically, describes the extent to which: 1. Centers progressed toward the targeted performance levels on the GPRA performance indicators identified for the program. 2. Grantees reported accomplishing self-identified objectives related to improving student achievement and academic behaviors. The following analyses are based on the APR for activities undertaken during the 2003–04 school year. It is important to point out that the data collected as part of the APR process for 21st CCLC–funded activities undertaken during the 2003–04 school year reflected the first year this type of information had been collected from state-awarded grantees. For this reason, it is not possible to compare these data to the outcomes of previous years. Proportion of States Selecting Different Reporting Options One of the purposes of the APR was to collect data that would inform how well the program is meeting the GPRA indicators for the program. Outlined below are the measures that were in place to evaluate performance on the GPRA indicators associated with the 21st CCLC program for the 2003–04 reporting period: 1. Percentage of regular program participants whose mathematics and English language arts grades improved from fall to spring 2. Percentage of regular program participants who meet or exceed the proficient level of performance on state assessments in reading language arts and mathematics (This measure was in the process of being phased out during the development of the APR to be replaced by the following: Percentage of regular program participants whose achievement test scores improve from not proficient to proficient or above on state assessments. Only data corresponding to the initial indicator was collected during the 2003–04 APR reporting process.) 3. Percentage of regular program participants with teacher-reported improvement in homework completion and class participation 4. Percentage of students with teacher-reported improvements in student behavior 5. Percentage of 21st CCLCs reporting emphasis in at least one core academic area (i.e., reading, mathematics, science) 6. Percentage of 21st CCLCs offering enrichment and support activities in technology 7. Percentage of 21st CCLCs offering enrichment and support activities in other areas Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—40 Prior to activating their APR module in PPICS, states were afforded a menu of options related to the reporting of student achievement and behavioral change data. For each of the options, data were only provided for those students who met the definition of regular attendee during the reporting period by participating in 30 days or more of activity at a center during the 2003–04 school year. States selected at least one of the following four impact categories for their grantees to report on: 1. Grades—Data on change in student grades in mathematics and reading and language arts based on a fall to spring comparison. 2. State assessment current year—State assessment data on student proficiency in mathematics and reading and language arts, for the current year only. The performance levels utilized by a given state for NCLB reporting requirements were converted to the federally defined performance categories of basic, proficient, and advanced. Appendix B describes the framework relied upon to convert state proficiency levels to these three federal proficiency levels. 3. State assessment cross year—States were given the option of reporting on changes in proficiency levels in mathematics and reading and language arts. This option required respondents to compare a student’s 2002–03 state assessment results with 2004–05 results for those participants who were regular attendees at this center during the reporting period. Respondents would make decisions about change in proficiency based on their state’s own proficiency levels. These results would then be converted to the federally defined performance categories of basic, proficient, and advanced using the framework described in Appendix B. This reporting method could be utilized in two ways: • Standard—Grantees reported how many regular attendees improved, declined, or stayed the same in their proficiency level on the state assessment when comparing the current year to the previous one. • Disaggregated—Basically the same as the standard approach, grantees instead report change in proficiency level disaggregated by the student’s previous proficiency level (e.g., the number of students that tested at a basic level last year who increased their proficiency level this year or stayed the same). 4. Teacher Survey—States also had the option of conducting and reporting on teacher responses to a survey on changes in the academic behavior of regular attendees. The survey data could be collected in one of two ways: • A federal teacher survey, developed by Learning Point Associates to assess academic-related behavioral change in student participants corresponding to the GPRA indicators. Grantees administer the survey to regular school-day teachers of program attendees. The federal teacher survey can be found at www2.learningpt.org/ppics/survey.asp. • A state teacher survey, previously developed by the state to assess behavioral change. States that chose this option were expected to ensure that they or their grantees report whatever results they have for regular attendees specifically in accordance with the federal definition of a regular attendee. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—41 Figure 28 describes the number of states selecting different options for reporting student achievement and behavioral outcomes. Table 11 details the reporting options. Figure 28. Number of States Selecting Different Reporting Options 27 32 7 3 21 11 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Grades Current Year Cross-Year Cross-Yr. Disagg Teacher Survey State Teacher Survey Reporting Options Number of States Note: Data based on 53 SEAs reporting Table 11. Types of Reporting Options in Detail Label Reporting Option Grades Grades Current Year State assessment results—current year only Cross-Year State assessment results—change across years Cross-Yr. Disagg State assessment results—change across years disaggregated by previous year performance level Teacher Survey Teacher survey of student academic behavior State Teacher Survey State-developed teacher survey of student academic behavior Key Points About State Selection of Reporting Options • Most states opted to report state assessment results for tests administered during the 2003–04 school year only rather than indicating how those results have changed from the previous year (i.e., cross-year comparisons). Thus, the findings about changes in state assessment results between the 2002–03 and 2003–04 school years are based on data from nine states that opted to report cross-year state assessment information. North Dakota initially selected the state assessment cross-year standard option, but it was later determined that they did not have the capacity to report on this impact category. In this regard, 10 states selected one of the state assessment cross-year options, but only nine were able to report on changes in state assessment results. • About two fifths of states (21 of 53) used the federal teacher survey to assess changes in student academic behavior, whereas about one fifth of states (11 of 53) utilized a state- developed survey. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—42 • Of the states, 31 opted to report more than one impact category, whereas 22 selected only one category to report. Change in Mathematics and Reading and Language Arts Grades The following series of analyses summarize the results of the various measures of student performance reported by the states. The purpose of these analyses is to provide a preliminary look at the outcomes of the program on student academic success. Figures 29 and 30 depict the proportion of regular attendees who improved by half a grade or more, stayed the same, or declined by half a grade in reading and language arts or mathematics, respectively, across the span of the 2003–04 school year. Figure 29. Change in Reading and Language Arts Grades Percentage of Regular Attendees 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Increased by Remained Decreased by Half a Grade the Same Half a Grade or More or More Degree of Change in Grades Elementary Middle/High School All Students Note: Centers providing data: 1,355 (37 percent of all centers nationwide) Figure 30. Change in Mathematics Grades 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Elementary Middle/High School All Students Increased by Half a Grade or More Remained the Same Percentage of Regular AttendeesDecreased by Half a Grade or More Degree of Change in Grades Note: Centers providing data: 1,355 (37 percent of all centers nationwide) Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—43 Key Points Related to Changes in Mathematics and Reading and Language Arts Grades • About 45 percent of all participants improved their reading and language arts grades, whereas only about 17 percent declined in these grades. • About 41 percent of all participants improved their mathematics grades, whereas about 19 percent declined in these grades. • A greater proportion of elementary students improved their mathematics and reading grades (43 percent and 47 percent, respectively) than middle school students did in mathematics and reading (38 percent and 41 percent, respectively). Conversely, a lower proportion of elementary students decreased in mathematics and reading grades (18 percent and 15 percent, respectively) compared to middle school students’ grades in mathematics and reading (24 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Proficiency Levels in Mathematics and Reading and Language Arts The NCLB Act delineated three categories of proficiency (as measured by state-administered achievement tests) for reading and language arts and mathematics. Student proficiency levels in core academic areas indicate the type of academic assistance that centers ought to provide for their students. The current level of proficiency also can serve as a baseline to examine the impact of the program in subsequent years. Figures 31 and 32 depict the proportion of regular attendees in 32 states who are classified in each federal proficiency category for both reading and language arts and mathematics, respectively. Figure 31. Percentage of Regular Attendees Attaining Federal Proficiency Levels During the 2003–04 School Year in Reading and Language Arts Advanced Proficient Basic 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percentage of RegularAttendeesElementary Middle/High All Students Federal Proficiency Levels Note: Centers reporting data: 1,898 (52 percent of all centers nationwide) Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—44 Figure 32. Percentage of Regular Attendees Attaining Federal Proficiency Levels During the 2003–04 School Year in Mathematics 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Advanced Proficient Basic Elementary Middle/High All StudentsPercentage of RegularAttendees Federal Proficiency Levels Note: Centers reporting data: 1,898 (52 percent of all centers nationwide) Key Points Related to State Assessment Results for Assessments Taken During the 2003–04 School Year • About 45 percent of attendees are at a basic proficiency level in reading, and about 43 percent are scoring at proficient. • About 49 percent of attendees are at a basic proficiency level in mathematics, and about 40 percent are scoring at proficient. Cross-Year Change in Mathematics and Reading and Language Arts Proficiency Ten states reported on the extent to which regular attendees witnessed a change in proficiency levels in mathematics or reading and language arts on state assessments taken during the 2002– 03 and 2003–04 school years. Of these, seven states selected the standard option (reporting the number of regular attendees who increased, decreased, or had no change in proficiency), and three states selected the disaggregated option (reporting the change in proficiency separately for students in different proficiency levels the previous year). Because of the low number of states selecting the disaggregated option, their data are combined in Figures 33 and 34 depicting cross- year change in the standard format for reading and language arts and mathematics, respectively. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—45 Figure 33. Cross-Year State Assessment Results Among Regular Attendees in Reading and Language Arts From 2002–03 to 2003–04 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Decrease in Proficiency Level Elementary Middle/High All Students Increase in Proficiency Level No Change in Proficiency Level Change in Proficiency Level Percentage of Attendees Note: Centers reporting data: 600 (17 percent of all centers nationwide) Figure 34. Cross-Year State Assessment Results Among Regular Attendees in Mathematics From 2002–03 to 2003–04 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Increase in Proficiency Level No Change in Proficiency Level Decrease in Proficiency Level Elementary Middle/High All StudentsPercentage of Attendees Change in Proficiency Level Note: Centers reporting data: 594 (16 percent of all centers nationwide) Key Points Related to State Assessment Cross Year Results • For both mathematics and reading assessments, 31 percent of students witnessed an improvement in the proficiency level in which they scored, whereas about 20 percent witnessed a decrease in proficiency level. • A somewhat greater proportion of students in middle and high school programs witnessed an improvement in proficiency level (32 percent in reading and language arts and 35 percent in mathematics) than did students in elementary school programs (30 percent in reading and language arts and 29 percent in mathematics). Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—46 Change in Academic Behaviors Improvement in academic behaviors is one of the expressed goals of the program. In order to assess the degree of behavioral change, teachers in 21 states completed a survey developed for this initiative in which they rated the degree of improvement in academic behaviors exhibited by regular program participants across the 2003–04 school year. Figure 35 summarizes these responses. For each behavioral category, the chart describes the proportion of students whose teachers reported improvement, no change, or decline in behavior. Table 12 details the categories of behavioral change. Figure 35. Change in Academic Behaviors of Regular Attendees Note: Percentage based on 62,851 teacher surveys; centers reporting data: 1,222 (34 percent of all centers nationwide) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% THWCHW PIC VOL ATT BAC BEH ACP MOT ALN Category of Behavior Percentage of RegularAttendeesImprovement in Behavior No Change in Behavior Decline in Behaviors Table 12. Categories of Behavioral Change in Detail Behavior Code Category of Behavioral Change THW Turning in homework on time CHW Completing homework to your satisfaction PIC Participating in class VOL Volunteering (e.g., for extra credit or more responsibilities) ATT Attending class regularly BAC Being attentive in class BEH Behaving in class ACP Academic performance MOT Coming to school motivated to learn ALN Getting along well with other students Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—47 Key Points Related to Changes in Academic Behavior • The categories of behavior with the highest percentage of student improvement were academic performance (71 percent of students rated as exhibiting improvement), completing homework to the teacher’s satisfaction and class participation (69 percent each), and turning in homework on time (68 percent). • For every category of behavior, teachers rated a majority of students as having improved. In no category of behavior did the percentage of students declining in behavior exceed 7 percent. • Overall, 69 percent of regular attendees demonstrated improvement in homework completion and class participation, while 64 percent demonstrated improvement across the full domain of behaviors identified on the survey. These results correspond to the two measures associated with the GPRA indicators on improvement in academic-related behaviors. • Although not displayed in Figure 35, the federal survey asked teachers to rate the degree of student improvement as “significant,” “moderate,” or “slight.” For most categories of behavioral change, around 40 percent of respondents who said that students improved indicated that this improvement was “significant,” 30 percent indicated “moderate” improvement, and about 30 percent of respondents indicated “slight” improvement. However, on the question asking whether students were attending class more regularly, nearly 50 percent of respondents who had indicated improvement described it as “significant.” State Survey As mentioned in the first part of this section, states had the option of using their own teacher survey and aligning it to the reporting categories of the federal teacher survey. Eleven states chose this option and had their grantees report state survey information. The following points provide some information about the options these states selected: • Five of these states used a presurvey and a postsurvey to obtain their results. The remaining six states used only a postsurvey. • All 11 states had grantee center staff both identify which teachers would take the survey and administer the survey in question. • All 11 states used surveys that were not designed to obtain data for other programs beyond the 21st CCLC program. • States also indicated the categories of academic behavioral change their surveys measured that corresponded to the categories on the federal teacher survey. The number of states (out of 11) selecting each category follows in Table 13. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—48 Table 13. Prevalence of State Surveys Aligning With Federal Survey Category of Academic Behavior Number of States (11 Total) School attendance 11 Homework completion 11 Quality of homework submitted 9 Academic performance 10 Classroom behavior 11 Participation in class 9 Effort expended in completing work 7 Interactions with peers 10 Because each survey was different, aggregate results for each category of behavioral change are not presented here. Information on the state-level results of each of the surveys can be found in Appendix A. Status of Grantee-Identified Objectives In the Grantee Profile section of PPICS, grantees identified the objectives of their program in their own words and indicated the category that best described it. Often these objectives were the goals that grant writers had listed in their initial grant proposal. On the APR, grantees were asked to indicate whether a specific objective had been met, and if not, whether progress had been made toward the objective. Grantees also were afforded the opportunity to indicate if steps had not been taken to measure progress on the objective in question. Figure 36 displays the percentage of grantees indicating whether they met or progressed toward at least one objective in the given category. Table 14 details the objective category classifications. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—49 Figure 36. Percentage of Grantees by Reported Status of Objectives 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ACHIEVEBEHCORENRICHRETENHOURSACTCOMSOCIALSECUREOTHER Percentage of Grantees Met at least one objective Did not meet, but progressed Did not meet, no progress Not measured Objective Category Classifications Note: Grantees providing data: 1,266 (99.9 percent) Table 14. Objective Category Classifications in Detail Objective Code Objective Classification ACHIEVE Improve student achievement BEH Improve student behavior CORE Participation in core educational services ENRICH Participation in enrichment activities RETEN Participant retention HOURS Hours of operation ACT Activity and service provision COM Community collaboration SOCIAL Social development SECURE Safe and secure environment Key Points Related to Objectives For every category, between 75 percent and 85 percent of grantees stated they had met the objective. Of the grantees who did not meet and objective, all or nearly all indicated they had progressed toward it. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—50 Conclusions and Next Steps In the nearly three years since SEAs began making 21st CCLC grants, a total of 2,729 grantees have provided academic enrichment programs, youth-development and support activities, and family-literacy and parental-involvement services to more than a million youth and adult family members via the 8,448 21st CCLCs operating nationwide by the end of 2004. These programs are serving some of the more economically needy families in the country, with 62 percent of student participants eligible for the free and reduced-price lunch program. Likewise, information indicates that a significant number of youth participating in state- administered 21st CCLC programs are academically at-risk. In the 32 states submitting state assessment results for the 2003–04 school year, approximately half of the regular attendees served by centers during this period scored below proficient on the mathematics (49 percent) and reading and language arts (45 percent) portions of their state’s assessment. Meeting the academic needs of these students is reflected in the programming provided by centers. During the 2003–04 school year, 90 percent of centers offered academic enrichment learning programs, 89 percent provided tutoring and homework help, and 82 percent offered academic improvement and remediation programs. Reflective of the statutorily articulated purposes of the 21st CCLC program in terms of addressing student needs in core academic areas, 96 percent of centers provided reading and literacy education programs and 92 percent offered activities that focused upon the development of mathematics skills and competencies. With the initial wave of APR data complete for activities undertaken during the 2003–04 school year, additional information is now available regarding how 21st CCLC programs are performing on the GPRA performance indicators associated with the program. As demonstrated in Table 15, grantees reported regular attendees witnessing improvements in grades, state assessment results, and academic behaviors. Only a portion of all grantees nationwide provided data as part of the 2003–04 APR for a given impact category related to changes in grades, state assessment results, and academic behaviors. Table 15. Grantee Reporting on Impact Categories for the 2003–04 School Year GPRA Performance Indicator % of Grantees Regular attendees demonstrating improved grades in reading and language arts 45% Regular attendees demonstrating improved grades in mathematics 41% Regular attendees demonstrating state assessment proficiency in reading and language arts 55% Regular attendees demonstrating state assessment proficiency in mathematics 51% Regular attendees demonstrating improved homework completion and class participation 69% Regular attendees demonstrating improved student behavior 64% Centers emphasizing at least one core academic area 98% Centers offering enrichment and support activities in technology 66% Centers offering enrichment and support activities in other areas 93% Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—51 GPRA Performance Indicator % of Grantees Regular attendees demonstrating improved state assessment results in reading and language arts* 31% Regular attendees demonstrating improved state assessment results in mathematics* 31% *These measures were not official GPRA indicators for the 2003–04 reporting period. As further steps are taken to modify and improve the data collected in PPICS for future waves of data collection, it seems appropriate to have ongoing discussions around what constitute reasonable measures of student achievement and academic behavioral change as they relate to the provision of the out-the-school time activities and services provided as part of the 21st CCLC program. In particular, it may be appropriate to explore how finer-grain measures can be used to assess student progress on the outcomes in question and to allow for the detection of change on a wider domain of dimensions. As PPICS continues to be populated with information about state-administered 21st CCLC programs, the ability to assess both fidelity in program implementation and how centers evolve over time in terms of services rendered, partnerships embarked upon, and the outcomes witnessed by 21st CCLCs will continue to grow. Documenting the continued development, evolution, and accomplishments of the 21st CCLC program will be at the core of future reporting efforts. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—52 Appendix A State Tables A-1: Competition Overview (2004 Competitions) State Competition Records Applicants Awards % of Applicants Funded $ Requested $ Awarded % of $ Funded AK AL AR AZ BI CA CO CTDC DE FL GA HI IAID ILIN KS KY LAMA MDME MIMN MOMS MT NC ND NE NH NJ NMNV NY OH OK OR PA PR RI 1 1 1 1 - 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 2 22 6 27% $7,701,361 83 30 36% $9,000,000 63 27 43% $9,162,202 28 20 71% $7,313,277 ---- 409 191 47% $178,172,847 34 16 47% $9,154,188 38 10 26% $11,696,861 50 7 14% $10,426,770 12 10 83% $2,511,448 74 35 47% $54,957,473 95 14 15% $43,613,666 10 4 40% $4,703,390 25 5 20% $7,056,913 12 11 92% $1,612,590 59 45 76% $25,100,000 ---- 44 9 20% $11,331,533 80 37 46% $12,048,644 43 18 42% $28,387,383 40 28 70% $11,965,976 41 11 27% $13,614,630 29 19 66% $3,639,500 73 15 21% $71,380,394 57 19 33% $13,621,180 99 34 34% $25,552,702 83 34 41% $6,133,683 33 16 48% $3,462,666 55 33 60% $16,524,704 14 14 100% $5,417,565 9 5 56% $2,517,165 12 5 42% $3,469,250 12 12 100% $5,016,716 36 10 28% $12,474,295 17 17 100% $2,173,323 253 89 35% $92,583,518 140 52 37% $36,124,293 69 15 22% $17,931,689 27 6 22% $6,435,910 131 58 44% $61,270,684 ---- 35 15 43% $7,694,387 $2,027,328 $4,350,149 $3,785,618 $5,666,430 - $91,176,463 $4,217,460 $2,292,598 $962,034 $1,907,000 $24,393,418 $8,282,372 $2,044,158 $1,533,038 $1,465,671 $16,800,000 - $2,522,349 $5,329,768 $8,265,892 $8,000,000 $3,880,217 $2,718,416 $30,159,081 $5,129,836 $8,565,092 $5,520,314 $1,855,000 $10,840,091 $3,790,000 $1,198,417 $1,858,716 $5,016,716 $2,929,498 $1,798,359 $40,444,918 $14,019,775 $3,573,099 $1,567,660 $18,290,248 - $3,800,313 26% 48% 41% 77% - 51% 46% 20% 9% 76% 44% 19% 43% 22% 91% 67% - 22% 44% 29% 67% 29% 75% 42% 38% 34% 90% 54% 66% 70% 48% 54% 100% 23% 83% 44% 39% 20% 24% 30% - 49% Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—53 A-1: Competition Overview (2004 Competitions) (continued) State Competition Records Applicants Awards % of Applicants Funded $ Requested $ Awarded % of $ Funded SC SD TN TXUT VA VT WAWI WV WY 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 182 43 24% $26,436,646 $6,308,820 46 32 70% $4,131,458 $3,061,314 89 51 57% $27,039,385 $7,615,000 454 89 20% $249,860,873 $60,745,241 16 6 38% $44,747,525 $2,007,213 59 35 59% $10,051,324 $5,453,458 16 12 75% $2,966,098 $1,603,483 51 10 20% $20,364,729 $4,927,004 53 14 26% $11,444,237 $2,400,000 32 14 44% $7,925,074 $2,916,347 25 19 76% $2,540,146 $1,171,500 24% 74% 28% 24% 4% 54% 54% 24% 21% 37% 46% Total 59 3,469 1,327 38% $1,260,462,271 $460,186,892 37% A-2: Grantee Profile Basic Information State Grantees Centers Feeder Schools Partners Anticipated Students Anticipated Adults Average Hours per Week AK 14 55 68 133 5,466 3,506 12.4 AL 86 131 201 642 13,402 8,774 13.7 AR 70 70 68 256 9,324 4,471 16.3 AZ 39 93 101 572 18,720 5,747 12.9 BI 32 51 92 223 8,415 3,416 20.1 CA 255 1,132 1,217 1,933 * * 17.6 CO 35 73 98 191 14,671 6,029 16.1 CT 32 80 243 221 24,200 4,273 16.7 DC 17 17 29 60 1,596 585 15.3 DE 21 41 79 55 3,177 1,222 18.1 FL 78 308 536 839 49,327 17,024 18.1 GA 48 205 287 507 20,020 11,641 16.9 HI 9 55 59 124 9,708 1,654 13.6 IA 16 39 49 154 3,290 2,070 17.7 ID 19 43 57 109 2,091 525 18.9 IL 96 338 427 585 43,108 17,727 15.1 IN 27 90 175 148 12,496 5,905 14.2 KS 28 72 86 329 9,595 3,611 11.9 KY 91 137 194 509 21,492 8,956 15.7 LA 34 87 132 271 10,069 3,551 12.5 MA 66 183 195 138 10,472 1,617 13.7 MD 34 121 290 286 10,246 4,962 11.1 ME 37 97 115 88 7,409 1,723 13.3 MI 52 191 207 523 21,127 5,120 15.2 MN 38 119 183 325 18,434 4,613 16.7 MO 55 132 236 371 15,950 12,071 19.1 MS 51 163 262 217 16,119 4,945 10.7 MT 37 80 151 408 17,246 8,274 11.3 NC 64 220 440 362 17,601 8,480 15.4 ND 12 67 38 87 4,147 1,849 17.9 Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—54 A-2: Grantee Profile Basic Information (continued) State Grantees Centers Feeder Schools Partners Anticipated Students Anticipated Adults Average Hours per Week NE NH NJ NMNV NY OH OK OR PA PR RISC SD TN TXUT VA VT WAWI WVWY 12 17 26 28 38 149 101 48 18 83 77 22 80 47 79 122 16 91 29 27 55 29 42 46 69 133 3,282 1,710 44 61 163 7,779 1,907 92 168 182 9,475 4,065 79 96 176 9,877 3,551 48 73 186 5,608 2,633 449 785 803 86,476 24,431 250 403 732 29,107 11,700 80 95 233 10,197 4,967 58 75 122 6,390 3,004 195 249 460 17,030 7,972 790 126 183 7,106 4,210 42 55 139 7,386 2,100 176 200 428 13,254 4,839 99 233 249 14,856 4,801 238 347 660 22,669 10,994 497 640 1,952 130,799 56,874 51 60 180 10,369 5,104 147 204 499 16,407 7,834 75 102 190 7,980 1,045 142 160 225 14,262 11,009 111 160 537 20,508 7,665 142 251 346 14,025 6,732 107 45 183 1,752 465 17.1 15.4 18.3 12.2 20.1 16.1 14.3 14.9 16.6 15.0 16.9 26.4 13.1 16.0 13.2 14.7 23.8 13.5 11.8 11.8 15.5 10.4 35.7 Total 2,729 8,448 10,972 19,627 885,512 353,953 - *Figures provided by California need further review. A-3: APR Basic Information State Grantees Centers Feeder Schools Total Students Regular Attendees Total Adult Participants Paid Staff Volunteer Staff AK 8 27 31 2,837 1,686 2,311 519 115 AL 29 43 72 4,230 2,707 1,104 575 570 AR 43 43 42 5,276 3,036 16 350 392 AZ 19 52 55 10,795 6,149 3,370 967 378 BI 28 41 68 5,821 3,552 1,790 909 868 CA 57 324 383 65,439 35,724 5,087 3,562 1,792 CO 19 41 58 6,915 3,013 1,715 877 461 CT 21 58 118 8,241 4,399 601 686 106 DC 5 16 16 1,380 1,171 410 167 92 DE 9 18 46 1,625 1,427 331 122 170 FL 42 158 297 23,556 16,799 3,286 2,578 908 GA 34 147 195 15,509 9,132 6,005 2,127 1,386 HI 3 23 27 2,608 608 276 319 22 IA 11 28 39 2,852 2,053 919 485 497 ID 9 27 39 1,643 1,643 63 242 277 IL 52 173 211 21,071 13,851 5,890 2,438 1,143 Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—55 A-3: APR Basic Information (continued) State Grantees Centers Feeder Schools Total Students Regular Attendees Total Adult Participants Paid Staff Volunteer Staff IN 27 90 148 13,409 4,968 972 632 88 KS 19 48 51 5,733 3,258 2,398 751 819 KY 54 71 100 12,334 5,719 2,393 1,212 1,297 LA 16 45 57 5,590 3,839 1,092 640 427 MA 38 108 123 11,925 7,660 0 30 0 MD 12 51 65 3,238 1,937 1,266 578 393 ME 18 45 48 3,009 1,095 299 83 687 MI 37 132 149 13,208 5,358 0 929 145 MN 19 65 95 11,245 6,224 1,409 1,038 545 MO 20 33 40 4,617 3,131 1,033 540 488 MS 17 67 101 5,825 3,796 1,058 703 175 MT 21 38 77 6,628 2,253 806 396 360 NC 29 104 258 8,652 4,573 2,849 1,407 984 ND 8 25 37 5,240 2,811 1,503 297 175 NE 7 22 34 1,805 1,033 372 163 136 NH 12 25 35 4,098 2,034 883 513 472 NJ 14 48 48 5,748 4,174 1,995 538 174 NM 19 54 70 7,164 3,640 2,950 814 317 NV 20 25 43 5,699 2,032 609 490 163 NY 59 192 288 33,259 18,344 8,496 3,143 1,195 OH 40 106 144 12,282 7,113 3,441 1,638 679 OK 17 25 30 3,634 1,988 713 404 149 OR 12 40 53 4,217 2,712 1,067 451 113 PA 30 118 158 12,933 9,539 3,679 1,704 588 PR 43 75 89 6,739 5,219 1,581 804 479 RI 7 16 22 3,139 1,498 1,280 260 124 SC 36 94 104 6,972 6,120 1,642 1,203 586 SD 15 31 53 4,770 1,536 544 362 346 TN 30 105 155 10,765 6,952 2,720 1,124 890 TX 33 141 165 29,279 10,151 2,677 2,772 1,034 UT 5 14 21 4,727 1,772 1,608 301 256 VA 31 59 91 5,814 3,753 1,447 757 410 VT 18 46 56 5,451 1,697 119 590 271 WA 14 67 74 8,665 3,914 6,152 660 450 WI 41 85 110 21,618 9,270 8,475 1,547 659 WV 18 89 159 7,652 2,803 2,673 680 2,022 WY 22 23 164 3,839 2,493 242 306 263 Total 1,267 3,641 5,212 500,720 273,359 105,617 47,383 27,536 Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—56 A-4: GPRA Indicator—Services Offered The percentage of 21st Century Community Learning Centers reporting emphasis in at least one core academic area and offering enrichment and support activities in technology and other areas (Target = 85 percent). State Emphasis in Core Academic Area(s) Enrichment and Support in Technology Enrichment and Support in Other Areas AK ALAR AZBI CA CO CTDC DEFL GA HI IAID ILIN KS KY LAMA MDME MIMN MOMS MTNC ND NE NH NJ NMNV NY OH OK OR PA PR RISC SD 96% 78% 89% 100% 81% 93% 97% 90% 83% 96% 65% 88% 100% 71% 95% 100% 61% 96% 100% 56% 93% 98% 9% 97% 100% 81% 94% 100% 67% 100% 100% 88% 97% 100% 78% 92% 91% 39% 43% 100% 79% 100% 96% 11% 52% 99% 53% 91% 80% 45% 91% 100% 69% 77% 100% 86% 99% 95% 61% 100% 99% 56% 88% 80% 45% 98% 100% 78% 100% 92% 61% 98% 97% 58% 67% 100% 85% 100% 100% 42% 70% 100% 92% 95% 98% 80% 98% 100% 100% 100% 100% 59% 100% 100% 80% 96% 94% 69% 94% 100% 74% 100% 100% 74% 100% 98% 67% 98% 99% 70% 92% 100% 96% 96% 100% 45% 95% 98% 86% 97% 100% 64% 97% 100% 53% 93% 100% 72% 89% 97% 52% 68% Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—57 A-4: GPRA Indicator—Services Offered (continued) State Emphasis in Core Academic Area(s) Enrichment and Support in Technology Enrichment and Support in Other Areas TN TXUT VA VT WAWI WVWY 100% 66% 96% 95% 58% 95% 100% 85% 92% 100% 68% 90% 95% 66% 80% 97% 72% 91% 100% 58% 100% 99% 61% 90% 91% 39% 91% All states 98% 66% 93% A-5: GPRA Indicators for Regular Attendees a. The percentage of regular program participants whose mathematics or English grades improved from 2003 to 2004 (Target = 45 percent). b. The percentage of regular program participants whose mathematics or English proficiency level on a state assessment improved from 2003 to 2004 (Target = 45 percent). c. The percentage of regular program participants with teacher-reported improvement in homework completion, class participation, and student behavior (Target = 75 percent). State a. % With Improved Grades in: b. % With Improved Proficiency Levels in: c. % With Teacher-Reported Improvement in: Mathematics Reading Mathematics Reading Homework Completion and Class Participation Student Behavior AK AL* AR AZ BI* CA CO CT DC DE FL* GA HI* IA ID* ILIN KS* KY LAMA MDME MI-- -- -- 42% 49% -- -- -- -- 34% 43% 38% 41% -- -- 37% 39% -- -- 39% 42% 27% 32% -- 52% 56% - -- 35% 39% 46% 56% 30% 34% 22% 26% -- -- -- 22% 20% 30% 30% 34% 32% -- 43% 47% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 19% 20% -- -- -- -- 67% 57% 80% 77% -- -- 64% 66% -- 60% 54% 68% 63% -- -- 76% 74% -- 70% 61% -- 63% 60% 65% 60% 60% 55% 34% 36% -- 72% 67% -- 76% 67% -- 60% 55% Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—58 A-5: GPRA Indicators for Regular Attendees (continued) a. The percentage of regular program participants whose mathematics or English grades improved from 2003 to 2004 (Target = 45 percent). b. The percentage of regular program participants whose mathematics or English proficiency level on a state assessment improved from 2003 to 2004 (Target = 45 percent). c. The percentage of regular program participants with teacher-reported improvement in homework completion, class participation, and student behavior (Target = 75 percent). State a. % With Improved Grades in: b. % With Improved Proficiency Levels in: c. % With Teacher-Reported Improvement in: Mathematics Reading Mathematics Reading Homework Completion and Class Participation Student Behavior MN* MO MS MT* NC ND NE* NH NJ NM NV NY OH OK OR PA PR RISC SD TN TX UT VA VT WA WI WV* WY* -- 44% 46% -- 45% 50% 47% 48% -- -- 38% 48% -- -- 40% 43% 40% 41% 46% 50% 29% 36% -- 42% 44% 52% 54% 34% 40% 42% 44% -- -- -- 25% 33% -- 40% 44% -- 37% 43% -- 28% 28% -- -- -- -- 52% 56% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 29% 28% 39% 40% -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 69% 70% -- 82% 78% 56% 51% -- -- 24% 26% 58% 49% 79% 76% -- -- 71% 68% -- 68% 65% 57% 50% 65% 59% 95% 94% 76% 71% -- -- 72% 66% -- 55% 50% 65% 58% -- -- 57% 52% 17% 18% 47% 46% All States 41% 45% 31% 31% National Survey 69% National Survey 64% State Survey 59% State Survey 60% *This state used its own teacher survey rather than the national version, so survey results for part “c” may not be comparable. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—59 A-6: GPRA Indicator—Current-Year State Assessment The percentage of regular attendees scoring at the given federal proficiency level on their state assessment for spring 2004. State Mathematics Reading Basic Proficient Advanced Basic Proficient Advanced AK AL AR AZ BI CA CO CT DC DE FL GA HI IA ID IL IN KS KY LA MA MD ME MI MN MO MS MT NC ND NE NH NJ NM NV NY OH OK OR PA PR RI SC SD TN TX 54% 31% 15% --- 65% 25% 10% 80% 14% 6% 58% 39% 3% --- 34% 62% 5% --- 69% 23% 8% 50% 43% 7% --- 23% 59% 17% 82% 15% 3% 42% 32% 27% --- 47% 40% 13% 50% 45% 4% 31% 31% 37% --- --- 77% 18% 6% --- --- 75% 19% 6% --- 69% 23% 8% --- 36% 46% 18% 29% 48% 23% --- --- --- 56% 37% 7% 53% 40% 7% 61% 31% 8% 23% 67% 10% --- --- --- 69% 20% 11% 37% 36% 27% 53% 38% 8% 88% 10% 3% 67% 29% 4% 34% 52% 13% 33% 56% 11% 56% 28% 16% --- 60% 38% 2% 73% 23% 4% 60% 38% 2% --- 23% 74% 3% --- 71% 24% 6% 41% 51% 7% --- 19% 52% 28% 85% 13% 2% 42% 31% 27% --- 50% 36% 14% 52% 45% 3% 26% 27% 47% --- --- 57% 41% 2% --- --- 79% 20% 1% --- 67% 29% 4% --- 38% 45% 17% 41% 45% 13% --- --- --- 37% 57% 6% 61% 35% 4% 65% 22% 13% 19% 72% 9% --- --- --- 67% 22% 11% 34% 40% 26% 54% 43% 2% 87% 12% 1% 63% 30% 7% 30% 56% 14% 32% 58% 10% Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—60 A-6: GPRA Indicator—Current-Year State Assessment (continued) State Mathematics Reading Basic Proficient Advanced Basic Proficient Advanced UT VA VT WA WI WV WY 27% 34% 39% --- --- 50% 35% 15% 56% 34% 9% --- --- 30% 35% -- -- 41% 39% 41% 43% -- -- 35% - - 20% 17% - - All states 49% 40% 12% 45% 43% 12% Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—61 Appendix B State Proficiency Levels State Number of Performance Levels Level Equivalent to Basic Level Equivalent to Proficient Level Equivalent to Advanced Alabama 4 Level 1, Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Alaska 4 Far below proficient, below proficient Proficient Advanced Arizona 4 Approaches the standard, far below the standard Meets the standard Exceeds the standard Arkansas 4 Below basic, basic Proficient Advanced California 5 Basic, below basic, far below basic Proficient Advanced Colorado 3 Basic Partially proficient, proficient Advanced Connecticut 5 Basic, below basic Proficient Advanced, goal District of Columbia 4 Basic, below basic Proficient Advanced Delaware 5 Below the standard, Well below the standard Meets the standard Distinguished, exceeds the standard Florida 5 Level 1, below basic, Level 2, basic Level 3, Level 4 Level 5 Georgia 3 CRCT*: Does not meet standard; GHSGT*: Failure CRCT*: Meets the standard; GHSGT*: Passes CRCT*: Exceeds the standard; GHSGT*: Passes plus Hawaii 4 Well below proficiency assessment, approaches proficiency assessment Meets proficiency Exceeds proficiency Idaho 4 Basic Proficient Advanced Illinois 4 Academic warning, below standard Meets the standard Exceeds the standard Indiana 3 Does not pass Passes Passes plus Iowa 3 Low Intermediate High Kansas 5 Basic, unsatisfactory Proficient Exemplary, advanced * Criterion-Referenced Competency Test (CRCT); Georgia High School Graduation Tests (GHSGT) Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—62 State Number of Performance Levels Level Equivalent to Basic Level Equivalent to Proficient Level Equivalent to Advanced Kentucky 4 Novice, apprentice (novice nonperformance, medium, and high, apprentice low, medium, and high) Proficient Distinguished Louisiana 5 Approaches basic (approaches the standard), unsatisfactory Basic (meets the standard) Advanced, mastery (exceeds the standard) Maine 4 Does not meet the standard, partially meets the standard Meets the standard Exceeds the standard Maryland 3 Basic Proficient Advanced Massachusetts 4 Failing (high school), warning (elementary), needs improvement Proficient Advanced Michigan 4 Basic, below basic Meets expectations Exceeds expectations Minnesota 5 Level 1, Level 2 Level 3 Level 4, Level 5 Mississippi 4 Minimal, basic Proficient Advanced Missouri 5 Step 1, progressing, nearing proficient Proficient Advanced Montana 4 Nearing proficient, novice basic, progressing Proficient Advanced Nebraska 4 Basic, progressing Proficient Advanced Nevada 4 Approaches standard, developing/emergent novice, basic Meets the standard Exceeds the standard New Hampshire 4 Novice, basic Proficient Advanced New Jersey 3 Partially proficient Proficient Advanced New Mexico 4 Beginning proficiency, nearing proficiency Proficient Advanced New York 4 Basic Basic proficiency, proficient Advanced North Carolina 4 Level 1, Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 North Dakota 4 Novice, partially proficient Proficient Advanced Ohio 4 Basic, below basic Proficient Advanced Oklahoma 4 Unsatisfactory, limited knowledge Satisfactory Advanced Oregon 5 Nearly meets, low, very low Meets the standard Exceeds the standard Pennsylvania 4 Basic, below basic Proficient Advanced Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—63 State Performance Levels Number of Level Equivalent to Basic Level Equivalent to Proficient Level Equivalent to Advanced Rhode Island 5 Nearly achieves the standard, below the standard, little evidence of achievement Achieves the standard Achieves the standard with honors South Carolina 4 Below basic, basic Proficient Advanced South Dakota 4 Basic, below basic Proficient Advanced Tennessee 3 Below proficient Proficient Advanced Texas 3 Does not meet the standard Meets the standard Commended performance Utah 4 Minimal, partial Sufficient Substantial Vermont 5 Nearly achieves the standard, below the standard, little evidence of achievement Achieves the standard Achieves the standard with honors Virginia 3 Failing, does not meet the standard Passes, proficient Passes, advanced Washington 4 Level 1, below basic, Level 2, basic Level 3 Level 4 West Virginia 5 Partial mastery, novice Mastery Distinguished, above mastery Wisconsin 4 Basic, minimal Proficient Advanced Wisconsin 4 Basic, minimal Proficient Advanced Wyoming 4 Novice, partially proficient Proficient Advanced Source: CCSSO 2003 State Accountability System Profile Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—64 21st CCLC Program 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLCs) Academic enrichment learning programs Appendix C Glossary From the U.S. Department of Education Web site: “The 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program is a key component of [the] No Child Left Behind Act. It is an opportunity for students and their families to continue to learn new skills and discover new abilities after the school day has ended.” “The focus of this program, reauthorized under Title IV, Part B, of the No Child Left Behind [NCLB] Act, is to provide expanded academic enrichment opportunities for children attending low- performing schools. Tutorial services and academic enrichment activities are designed to help students meet local and state academic standards in subjects such as reading and mathematics. In addition, 21st CCLC programs provide youth-development activities; drug- and violence-prevention programs; technology education programs; art, music and recreation programs; counseling; and character education to enhance the academic component of the program.” As part of the reauthorization under NCLB, the program is now administered through state education agencies (SEAs) rather than directly by the US Department of Education. A community learning center offers academic, artistic, and cultural enrichment opportunities to students and their families during nonschool hours (before or after school) or periods when school is not in session (e.g., holidays, weekends, and summer recess). A center supported with 21st CCLC funds is considered to be the physical location where grant-funded services and activities are provided to participating students and adults. A center is characterized by defined hours of operation; a dedicated staff that plans, facilitates, and supervises program activities; and an administrative structure that may include a position akin to a center coordinator. A 21st CCLC grant must fund at least one 21st CCLC center. If the same participants attending a program participate in activities at multiple sites, only one of these locations should be selected as the primary center serving that group of participants. Enrichment activities expand on students’ learning in ways that differ from the methods used during the school day. They often are interactive and project focused. They enhance a student’s education by bringing new concepts to light or by using old concepts in new ways. These activities are fun for the student, but they also impart knowledge. They allow the participants to apply knowledge and skills stressed in school to real-life experiences. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—65 Academic improvement and remediation programs Activities Activities for limited-Englishproficient students Activities targeting adult family members Activities that target truant, expelled, or suspended students Adult family member attendees Annual Performance Report (APR) These activities specifically target students whose academic performance has been deemed to be in need of improvement given that the student is not performing at grade level, is failing, or is otherwise performing below average. Academic improvement programs are designed to address deficiencies in student academic performance. Activities in this category may involve tutoring, academic enrichment, or other forms of service delivery that specifically involve students identified as in need of academic improvement. This includes statutorily authorized events or undertakings at the center that involve one or more program participant. These activities specifically target students with limited English proficiency and are designed to further enhance students’ ability to utilize the English language. Activities targeting adult family members must require ongoing and sustained participation by the adult family member in order to achieve the acquisition of knowledge or a skill meant to be imparted through participation in the service or activity. Examples of activities that conform to these requirements would include General Educational Development (GED) classes, classes on how to develop a resume, or a programming series on effective parenting strategies. Episodic, nonrecurring, or special events are likely not to conform to these requirements. For example, an open house night for the parents of children attending the center involving a meal and social activities would not conform to these requirements. These activities specifically target truant, expelled, or suspended students and are designed to reengage these students in educational services that have estranged them from traditional educational settings and/or address academic attainment or behavioral issues through counseling and support. These are adults age 19 or older who are NOT in elementary, middle, or high school; are family members of participating children; and participate in educational services or other activities appropriate for adults provided by the center. All grantees active across the span of a given reporting period will need to provide information required as part of the APR process. The purposes of the APR are to collect data: (1) from 21st CCLC grantees on progress made during the preceding year in meeting their project objectives; (2) on what elements characterized center operation during the reporting period, including the student and adult populations served; and (3) that address the Government Performance and Reporting Act (GPRA) performance indicators for the 21st CCLC program. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—66 Career and job training Centers Community service and service learning programs Community partners Community-based organization/ nonprofit agency Competition Overview Drug- and violence- prevention, counseling, and character education programs Expanded library hours These activities may target youths and/or adults participating in the 21st CCLC program and are designed to support the development of a defined skill set directly transferable to a specific vocation, industry, or career. For youths participating in center programming, activities designed to expose youths to various types of careers and those that help inform youths of the skills needed to obtain a given career also could be considered part of this activity category. These are the physical locations where grant-funded services and activities are provided to participating students and adults. See 21st Century Community Learning Center. These activities are characterized by defined service tasks performed by students that address a given community need and provide for structured opportunities that link tasks to the acquisition of values, skills, or knowledge by participating youths. These are organizations other than the grantee that actively contribute to the 21st CCLC–funded project. This is an entity organized and operated exclusively for one or more of the purposes set forth in Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3). For the purposes of completing the APR, to be identified as a community- based organization/nonprofit agency, an organization should not be classifiable as a nationally affiliated nonprofit agency or a faith-based organization. The Competition Overview module of the Profile and Performance Information Collection System (PPICS) obtains: (1) basic descriptive information provided by SEAs about the outcomes of a given subgrant competition (i.e., number of applicants, number of grants awarded) held in a given state to award new 21st CCLC grants; and (2) information about the performance indicators and priorities employed in structuring a statewide program. Competition Overview records were completed for any competitions administered in a state in calendar year 2004 or later that resulted in new grant awards. These activities are designed to prevent youths from engaging in high- risk behaviors including the use of drugs and alcohol; to promote the amelioration of the causal factors that may lead youths to participate in such activities through counseling and support; and to cultivate core ethical values such as caring, honesty, fairness, responsibility, and respect for self and others that are likely to contribute to prevention efforts. This is when 21st CCLC funds are used specifically to expand the normal operating hours of a library. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—67 Faith-based organizations Federal discretionary grant Federal proficiency level Feeder schools Free or reduced- price lunch Government Performance and Reporting Act (GPRA) Grantee These are entities whose primary program area can be defined as being religious. A faith-based organization could be a religious congregation or an organization that primarily undertakes activities of a religious nature. Please note that YMCAs/YWCAs are not considered to be faith-based organizations. This is the grant directly administered by the U.S. Department of Education (rather than the SEAs) prior to the passage of the NCLB Act. State proficiency levels have been matched to one of three federal proficiency levels: basic, proficient, and advanced. These are any public or private schools that provide students to the 21st CCLC. From www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Lunch/default.htm: “The National School Lunch Program (NSLP) is a federally assisted meal program operating in public and nonprofit private schools and residential child-care institutions. It provides nutritionally balanced, low-cost or free lunches to children each school day. The program was established under the National School Lunch Act, signed by President Harry Truman in 1946.” From the U.S. Department of Education Web site: “The Government Performance and Reporting Act (GPRA) of 1993 is a straightforward statute that requires all federal agencies to manage their activities with attention to the consequences of those activities. Each agency is to clearly state what it intends to accomplish, identify the resources required, and periodically report their progress to Congress. In so doing, it is expected that the GPRA will contribute to improvements in accountability for the expenditures of public funds; improve congressional decision making through more objective information on the effectiveness of federal programs; and promote a new government focus on results, service delivery, and customer satisfaction.” This is the entity serving as the fiduciary agent for a given 21st CCLC grant. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—68 Grantee Profile High-poverty school Mentoring Nationally affiliated nonprofit agencies Nonregulatory guidance Nonteaching school staff Partners Performance indicators Priority, mandatory Priority, optional Profile and Performance Information Collection System (PPICS) The Grantee Profile module of PPICS collects basic information about a state’s grantees, the proposed objectives and community partners associated with a given project, the activities grantees propose to deliver at each of their centers, and the students and family members they intend to serve. Data housed in the Grantee Profile module should always reflect what is currently true about a program or what will be true once the program commences operation. A Grantee Profile record needs to be completed for all 21st CCLC grantees in a state funded through state-administered competitions. These are schools serving students who live in a high-poverty area. High poverty is determined by several methods depending on the state, including free or reduced-price lunch eligibility and census data. Mentoring activities primarily are characterized by matching students one-on-one with one or more adult role models, often from a business or the community, for guidance and support. These are nonprofit entities associated with a national organization. Local YMCAs, YWCAs, the Girl Scouts, the Boy Scouts, Big Brothers/ Big Sisters, and Boys and Girls Clubs are all considered to be nationally affiliated nonprofit agencies. This is documentation provided by the U.S. Department of Education that, while not part of the legislation, provides description and clarification to support programs operating under the 21st CCLC grant. These are staff members who are employed by the school but do not have teaching responsibilities (e.g., office and administrative staff). See Community Partners. These are measures intended to determine the effectiveness of the program in achieving one of its goals. A program attribute (e.g., having a community partner, serving a certain population of students) that has been made a requirement for receiving grant funds from the state. Also referred to as an absolute priority. A program attribute (e.g., having a community partner, serving a certain population of students) that will result in a better chance of the program receiving a grant in the state competition. Also referred to as a competitive priority. The 21st CCLC Profile and Performance Information Collection System is a Web-based data-collection system developed to capture information regarding 21st CCLC programs. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—69 Programs that These are activities that specifically target adult family members of promote parent youths participating in the 21st CCLC program and are designed to involvement and more actively engage parents in supporting the educational attainment family literacy of their children or enhance the literacy skills of preschool and adult family members. These activities may take place during the school day. Recreational These activities are not academic in nature, but rather allow students activities time to relax or play. Sports, games, and clubs fall into this category. Occasional academic aspects of recreation activities can be pointed out, but the primary lessons learned in recreational activities are in the areas of social skills, teamwork, leadership, competition, and discipline. Regular attendee This refers to students who have attended a 21st CCLC program for at least 30 days (which do not have to be consecutive) during the reporting period. Reporting period The reporting period for the APR coincides with the school year and includes the summer prior to the school year. Service learning See Community Service and Service Learning Programs. State Activities The purpose of the State Activities module is to collect data on how an SEA allocated its prior fiscal year 2 percent administrative allocation and 3 percent training and/or evaluation allocation to support the 21st CCLC program in its state. State assessments These are the assessments administered by a given state and relied upon by the SEA to meet consolidated reporting requirements under the NCLB Act. Subcontractor This is an organization that receives 21st CCLC grant funds under contract with the grantee to provide 21st CCLC grant-funded activities or services. For APR purposes, a subcontractor is considered to be a type of partner. Subgrant These are the means by which organizations are able to apply for and competitions receive subgrants from the SEA to operate a 21st CCLC program. Supplemental Supplemental educational services are additional academic instruction educational designed to increase the academic achievement of students in schools services that have not met state targets for increasing student achievement (adequate yearly progress) for three or more years. These services may include tutoring and afterschool services. They may be offered through public- or private-sector providers that are approved by the state, such as public schools, public charter schools, local education agencies, educational service agencies, and faith-based organizations. Students from low-income families who remain in Title I schools that fail to meet state standards for at least three years are eligible to receive these services. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—70 Teacher survey This survey is administered at the end of the year. The survey asks school-day teachers to report if 21st CCLC regular attendees’ behavior improved or did not improve in certain areas. For every student identified as a regular attendee (30 days or more), one of his or her regular school-day teachers is selected to complete the teacher survey. For elementary school students, the teacher should be the regular classroom teacher. For middle and high school students, a mathematics or English teacher should be surveyed. Although teachers also serving as 21st CCLC program staff may be included, it is preferred that programs survey teachers who were not also program staff. Only one teacher survey should be filled out for each student identified as a regular attendee. Title I “Title I” refers to Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act: “The purpose of this title is to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging state academic achievement standards and state academic assessments.” Title I programs include any program funded under the provisions of Title I. Tutoring and These activities provide direct assistance with classroom work. Tutors homework help or teachers help students complete their homework, prepare for tests, and work specifically on concepts covered during the school day. Typical Typical can be defined as the usual or characteristic attributes associated with center operation and programming. By definition, a 21st CCLC center should be characterized by defined hours of operation that should be relatively consistent across the school year and summer (e.g., 3–6 p.m., Monday through Thursday). Special, nonrecurring, or episodic events, field trips, or programming would not be considered typical attributes associated with center operation and should not be considered when reporting information associated with the typical hours and days of operation of the center nor when reporting the typical activities provided by the center. In some instances, centers may be characterized by recurring periods of operation or programming that take place on an ongoing basis but less frequently than weekly. For example, a center may be open on the fourth Saturday of every month in addition to a regular weekly schedule. In this case, in order to report on typical hours of operation, the center may want to consider adding up the total hours of operation for a typical month and dividing by 4.3 to obtain a weekly average that can be used to report on typical hours of operation. A similar approach can be taken to reporting on the typical number of days a center was open per week and the typical number of hours per week that a given activity was attended by center participants. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—71 Youth development worker Youth leadership activities A youth development worker is any paid staff or volunteer staff member who is not certified as a school-day teacher, is not employed during the school day in some other capacity (e.g., librarian, school counselor) by one or more of the feeder schools and/or districts associated with the 21st CCLC, and has a nonteaching-based college degree or higher. These activities intentionally promote youth leadership through skill development and the provision of formal leadership opportunities designed to foster and inspire leadership aptitude in participating youth. Learning Point Associates An Overview of the 21st CCLC Program: 2003–04—72