# 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) Analytic Support for Evaluation and Program Monitoring:

**An Overview of the\
21st CCLC Program: 2004--05**

**July 2006**

**Submitted to**

**Robert Stonehill, Program Director**

#### *21st Century Community Learning Centers*

***U.S. Department of Education***

**Prepared by**

**Neil Naftzger**

**Seth Kaufman**

**Jonathan Margolin**

**Asma Ali**

***Learning Point Associates***

![](media/image1.png){width="2.4277777777777776in"
height="0.5541666666666667in"}

> 1120 East Diehl Road, Suite 200
>
> Naperville, IL 60563-1486
>
> 800-356-2735 630-649-6500
>
> www.learningpt.org

Copyright © 2006 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.

Learning Point Associates is a trademark of Learning Point Associates
1406_06/06

# Contents

Page

[Introduction 1](#introduction)

[21st CCLC Profile and Performance Information Collection System
(PPICS)](#st-cclc-profile-and-performance-information-collection-system-ppics)
3

[Cross-Year Comparisons](#cross-year-comparisons) 5

[Report Organization](#report-organization) 6

[Section 1: Competition Overview and State
Activities](#__RefHeading___Toc129767154) 7

[Competitive Priorities for Subgrant
Competitions](#competitive-priorities-for-subgrant-competitions) 7

[Applicant Funding Rates](#applicant-funding-rates) 7

[State Activities](#state-activities) 9

[Section 2: Grantee and Center
Characteristics](#__RefHeading___Toc129767160) 12

[Feeder School Characteristics](#feeder-school-characteristics) 13

[Grantee Characteristics by APR
Cohort](#grantee-characteristics-by-apr-cohort) 16

[Section 3: Structural Features](#__RefHeading___Toc129767164) 19

[Partnerships](#partnerships) 19

[Operations](#operations) 20

[Staffing](#staffing) 23

[Section 4. Programming](#__RefHeading___Toc129767168) 26

[Programming Across Categories of Activity or
Service](#programming-across-categories-of-activity-or-service) 26

[Subject Area of Activity or
Service](#subject-area-of-activity-or-service) 31

[Section 5: Attendance](#section-5-attendance) 34

[Yearly Attendance Totals](#yearly-attendance-totals) 34

[Characteristics of Student
Attendees](#characteristics-of-student-attendees) 37

[Special Service Utilization of Student
Attendees](#special-service-utilization-of-student-attendees) 38

[Student Attendance by Gender](#student-attendance-by-gender) 39

[Attendance by Grade Level](#attendance-by-grade-level) 39

[Feeder Schools and Attendance](#feeder-schools-and-attendance) 40

[Section 6. Student Achievement and Academic Behavioral
Outcomes](#__RefHeading___Toc129767178) 44

[Proportion of States Selecting Different Reporting
Options](#proportion-of-states-selecting-different-reporting-options) 44

[GPRA Indicators](#gpra-indicators) 46

[Change in Math and Reading/Language Arts Grades and Proficiency
Levels](#change-in-math-and-readinglanguage-arts-grades-and-proficiency-levels)
48

[Proficiency Levels Attained by Regular
Attendees](#proficiency-levels-attained-by-regular-attendees) 49

[Change in Academic
Behaviors](#proficiency-levels-attained-by-regular-attendees) 52

[Conclusions and Next Steps](#__RefHeading___Toc129767178) 55

[References](#__RefHeading___Toc129767183) 57

Appendixes

[Appendix A. State Tables](#appendix-a) 58

[Appendix B. Community Type (Locale)](#__RefHeading___Toc129767185) 69

[Appendix C. State Profiency Levels](#__RefHeading___Toc129767185) 85

[Appendix D. Glossary 88](#__RefHeading___Toc129767185)

# Introduction

Each weekday afternoon in America as the ringing of the school bell
signifies the end of the school day, over a million school-age children
continue to learn by afterschool participation 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 the 9,930 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-of-school time services to
children and community members. Reauthorized under the No Child Left
Behind (NCLB) Act and now administered by the states, the primary
purposes of the 21st CCLC program---according to the nonregulatory
guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Education in 2003---are as
follows:

-   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.

-   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.

-   Offer families of students served by community learning centers
    opportunities for literacy and related educational development.

The primary purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the 21st
CCLC program as it exists under state administration by replicating and
expanding the domain of analyses performed in a similar report prepared
in June 2005 (Naftzger, Margolin, & Kaufman, 2005). Findings documented
in the June 2005 report demonstrated that the 21st CCLC program 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 through the 8,448 21st CCLCs
operating nationwide by the end of 2004. In addition, these programs
were found to be serving some of the more economically needy families in
the country, with 62 percent of student participating in the program
during the course of the 2003--04 school year eligible for the free or
reduced-price lunch program. Likewise, information collected in
preparation of the June 2005 report indicated that a significant number
of youth participating in state-administered 21st CCLC programs were
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 also was reflected in the
programming provided by centers during the course of the 2003--04 school
year. During this period, 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.

In terms of facilitating improvements in academic achievement and
behaviors, grantees completing the Annual Performance Report (APR)
submission process for the 2003--04 school year reported regular
attendees witnessing improvements in grades, state assessment results,
and academic behaviors, as shown in Table 1:

Table 1. Educational Improvements Reported by 21st CCLC Grantees

  ---------------------------------------------------------- -------------
  **Indicators of Regular Attendee Improvement in Academic   **% of
  Achievement and Behavior: 2003--04 School Year**           Regular
                                                             Attendees**

  Regular attendees demonstrating improved grades in reading 45%
  and language arts\*                                        

  Regular attendees demonstrating improved grades in         41%
  mathematics\*                                              

  Regular attendees demonstrating improved homework          69%
  completion and class participation\*                       

  Regular attendees demonstrating improved student           64%
  behavior\*                                                 

  Regular attendees demonstrating improved state assessment  31%
  results in reading and language arts                       

  Regular attendees demonstrating improved state assessment  31%
  results in mathematics                                     
  ---------------------------------------------------------- -------------

> \*A measure associated with the Government Performance and Results Act
> (GPRA) of 1993 indicators for the 21st CCLC program

Like its predecessor, 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. In addition, this report also
will include for the first time information about the makeup of those
schools attended by students participating in the 21st CCLC program; how
urban, suburban, and rural programs differ; and how overall program
performance relative to the performance indicators associated with the
21st CCLC program changes over time. 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 program 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 the U.S. Department of Education (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:

-   To obtain the data necessary to report on the indicators for the
    21st CCLC program in accordance with the Government Performance and
    Results Act (GPRA) of 1993.

-   To obtain information that will allow ED to monitor how the program
    is operating under state administration.

-   To provide ED staff with the capacity to respond to congressional,
    Office of Management and Budget, and other departmental inquiries
    about the program.

-   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.

There are four data-entry modules that make up PPICS:

-   Competition Overview module

-   Grantee Profile module

-   Annual Performance Report (APR) module

-   State Activities module

Each of these modules is discussed in further detail.

### 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 specifically
examines Competition Overview records associated with request for
proposal (RFP) processes undertaken by states that resulted in the
awarding of new 21st CCLC grants between January and August 2005.
Competition Overview records in PPICS were complete (i.e., all mandatory
fields had been completed by the responding state) for 17 of the 19
competitions held by states during the first eight months of 2005. This
result is similar to the rate of completion from the previous report,
where 58 of the 59 competitions held by states during calendar year 2004
were complete in PPICS.

### 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 approach makes 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 2,869 active
21st CCLC grantees that received a state-administered 21st CCLC grant
through June 2005. Grantee Profile records were complete for 99 percent
of grantees funded during this period. This result is an improvement
from the previous report, in which 87 percent of grantees funded through
the end of 2004 had complete Grantee Profile records.

### APR Module

The purposes of the APR module are as follows: (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:

-   Objectives (to what extent the grantees accomplished what they
    intended to with 21st CCLC funds)

-   Partners (what entities contributed to the program during the
    reporting period and the nature of their contribution)

-   Centers (center location, hours of operation, activities provided,
    population served, and 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 by the
U.S. Department of Education to evaluate performance on the GPRA
indicators associated with the 21st CCLC program:

-   Percentage of regular program participants whose grades in
    mathematics or English improved from fall to spring.

-   Percentage of regular program participants whose achievement test
    scores improved from not proficient to proficient or above on state
    assessments.

-   Percentage of regular program participants with teacher-reported
    improvement in homework completion and class participation.

-   Percentage of regular program participants with teacher-reported
    improvements in student behavior.

-   Percentage of 21st CCLCs reporting emphasis in at least one core
    academic area.

-   Percentage of 21st CCLCs offering enrichment and support activities
    in technology.

-   Percentage of 21st CCLCs offering enrichment and support activities
    in other areas.

APR data are presented in this report for the 2,408 grantees that needed
to submit APR data for activities undertaken during the summer of 2004
and the 2004--05 school year. APR records were complete for 90 percent
of the grantees that needed to submit these APR data. This result is an
improvement from the 2003--04 reporting period, where 88 percent of the
1,267 grantees needing to submit an APR for activities undertaken during
that time frame had complete APRs.

### 

### 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 2004 allocations. Of the 53 SEAs required to
submit PPICS data, 52 had complete State Activities records for FY 2004.
This result is equivalent to the completion rate witnessed for the State
Activities module for FY 2003.

## Cross-Year Comparisons

In the June 2005 report, data obtained through the APR module of PPICS
corresponding to activities undertaken during the 2003--04 school year
by 21st CCLC grantees were presented in aggregate form for the nation
based on information supplied by the 1,267 grantees active during the
span of this time period. Information obtained as part of the 2003--04
APR reporting process represented the first time that this type of
information was systematically collected from 21st CCLC grantees since
the program's reauthorization under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
of 2001.

Given that two years of APR data are now available pertaining to
activities undertaken during the 2003--04 and 2004--05 reporting
periods, the domain of analyses based on APR data have been expanded in
this year's report. In addition to reporting on overall national results
based on activities undertaken during the 2004--05 reporting period,
this report also will include cross-year comparisons employing the
following approaches:

-   National, aggregated data obtained from the 2003--04 APR will be
    compared with similar data garnered as a result of the 2004--05
    reporting process.

-   For centers represented in both reporting periods, data will be
    presented that demonstrate how centers may have modified their
    operations from one reporting period to another.

-   Comparisons will be drawn between those centers that first reported
    APR data during the 2003--04 reporting period (what we call Cohort 1
    centers) and those reporting for the first time as part of the
    2004--05 reporting period (Cohort 2 centers).

To more formally state what we mean by the term, *cohort* is defined by
whether a given grantee/center providing data as part of the 2004--5 APR
reporting process first reported APR information for the 2003--04
reporting period (Cohort 1: 1,207 grantees and 3,513 centers) or for the
2004--05 reporting period (Cohort 2: 1,280 grantees and 4,339 centers).
This definition is different from the definition of *cohort* that may be
used in individual states according to when the grantee received its
award. Note that some of the Cohort 2 centers are new centers opened by
Cohort 1 grantees.

## 

## Report Organization

This report is organized into six primary sections, each of which
present information about the 21st CCLC program from a national
perspective:

> Section 1: Competition Overview and State Activities
>
> Section 2: Grantee and Center Characteristics
>
> Section 3: Structural Features
>
> Section 4: Programming
>
> Section 5: Attendance
>
> Section 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.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc129767154 .anchor}**Section 1: Competition
Overview and State Activities**

State education agencies (SEAs) set policies for subgrant competitions
in order to shape the structural features and programming of the
grantees in their state. They do this by specifying competitive
priorities, defining low-income schools, and selecting performance
indicators to which grantees must conform. During the first eight months
of 2005, 19 states ran competitions resulting in the awarding of new
21st CCLC grants.[^1] Because two of these states did not report data to
the Competition Overview module, analyses outlined in this section are
based on data from 17 competitions.

States had the discretion to set both mandatory and optional funding
priorities for the competitions administered during calendar year 2005.
In the Competition Overview module of PPICS, a *mandatory priority* is
defined as a condition specified in the RFP that an applying entity must
meet in order to be eligible for 21st CCLC funding; 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.

## 

## Competitive Priorities for Subgrant Competitions

In addition to the discretion afforded to states in establishing
competitive priorities, all 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" (Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2003, p.
19). Reflecting this guidance, 16 out of 17 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 competitive priorities are as
follows:

-   In 15 of 17 competitions, providing services in at least one core
    academic area (e.g., reading/language arts, mathematics, and
    science) was a mandatory priority; in one additional competition, it
    was an optional priority.

-   In all 17 competitions, providing educational opportunities for
    adult family members was identified as either a mandatory or
    optional priority.

## Applicant Funding Rates

There were 19 subgrant competitions held during the first eight months
of 2005, less than one third as many as were run in 2004. Of the 17
complete Competition Overview records in PPICS in 2005, 923
organizations applied for subgrants and 263 of these received awards for
an acceptance rate of 28 percent. In light of the fewer competitions
held by states in 2005, the overall volume of applicants nationwide fell
by 73 percent compared to the previous year. The acceptance rate among
applicants fell by 33 percent. When considering the typical funding
rates associated with state competitions held in 2005:

-   The median acceptance rate was 42 percent across state competitions.
    The range of 14 percent to 70 percent encompasses the acceptance
    rates of the middle half of the states (i.e., the interquartile
    range).

-   Applicants requested a total of \$215,188,667 in first-year funds,
    and SEAs awarded \$53,771,629 to support the initial year of
    operation of new grantees funded in 2005. The dollar-based funding
    rate of 25 percent is a 32 percent decrease from last year's funding
    rate.

### Changes in Supply and Demand of 21st CCLC Funds

One question is whether the demand for funding of new centers has
abated. It is possible to address this question by comparing the demand
for funding last year to this year among the 16 states that ran
competitions in both years. The median number of applicants per
competition remained about the same (29.5 last year and 29 this
year)[^2]. Thus, it appears that the overall demand for grants has not
decreased, at least in these 16 states. However, the median total dollar
amount requested per competition decreased from \$8,539,631 to
\$6,315,937. This result may indicate that the financial needs of the
applicants were not as great or that their expectations for funding were
diminished.

Another question is whether there have been changes in the ability of
states to meet the demand for funds. The median acceptance rate among
the 16 states decreased slightly, from 45 percent to 41 percent. The
median dollar-based funding rate also decreased slightly, from 45
percent to 38 percent. Finally, the median of the average amount of
award decreased from \$223,259 in 2004 to \$172,409 in 2005, a 23
percent decrease. Though many of these changes are not great, they could
potentially suggest that the capacity of states to meet the demand for
funding of new grantees has decreased slightly. However, it also should
be noted that the length of the base grant period did not change in most
of the 16 states.

### Application and Acceptance Rates of 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 1 describes the
prevalence of different types of organizations among applicants for
competitions held in 2005. These findings are largely unchanged from
2004. The abbreviations of organization types used in this report are as
follows:

-   SD: School district

-   CBO: Community-based organization or other nonprofit organization

-   FBO: Faith-based organization

-   CS: Charter school

-   COU: College or university

-   FPC: For-profit entity

-   NPA: Nationally affiliated nonprofit agency

Figure 1. Proportion of 2005 Applicants and Grantees by Organization
Type

![](media/image2.wmf){width="5.125in" height="2.8333333333333335in"}

> *Note.* "Other" is the combination of the following categories: Other,
> Unit of City or County Government, Regional/Intermediate Education
> Agency, Health-Based Organization, Library, Park/Recreation District,
> Library, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Private School.

Some key points about application and acceptance rates are as follows:

-   About three fifths of applicants and grantees are school districts,
    and about one fifth are community-based organizations.

-   The overall acceptance rate for each organization corresponds
    roughly to its overall application rate. However, some of the
    organizations with small application rates (e.g., faith-based
    organizations, charter schools, and nationally affiliated nonprofit
    agencies) had very small acceptance rates.

# 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 law 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 5 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. Up to
3 percent of the state's allocation for the 21st CCLC program could be
allotted for training, technical assistance, and evaluation services.
Most states allocated the full 2 percent and 3 percent allotments.
Regarding both types, 94 percent of states allocated their entire
allotment.[^3]

## 

## Allocation of Funds for Training, Technical Assistance, and Evaluation Services

Figure 2 describes the percentage of states allocating their 3 percent
moneys to specific types of services:

-   Applicant Training: Providing training and technical assistance to
    eligible entities who are applicants for awards.

-   Grantee Training: Providing training and technical assistance to
    eligible entities who 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 2. Proportion of States Allocating Funds for Various Training
Activities

![](media/image3.wmf){width="5.125in" height="3.0in"}

All or nearly all states reported that they allocated funds to support
grantee training and monitoring of programs and activities. Most states
allocated funds toward applicant training and evaluation.

### 

### Training and Technical Assistance to Grantees

indicates the proportion of states that provided various types of
training and technical assistance to grantees. It illustrates that the
different categories of assistance are fairly comparable in their
proportions of states providing them to grantees. As shown below, nearly
90 percent or more of all SEAs offered each of the following types of
training:

-   Fiscal: Fiscal management and administration

-   Reporting: Meeting state reporting or evaluation requirements

-   Content: Enhancing academic content

-   Community: Enhancing community involvement and collaboration

-   Sustainability: Promoting program sustainability

Figure 3. Proportion of States Providing Types of Technical Assistance\
and Training to Grantees

![](media/image4.wmf){width="5.25in" height="3.0in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc129767160 .anchor}**Section 2: Grantee and Center
Characteristics**

An emphasis of the June 2005 report was to outline the basic
characteristics of grantees and centers funded by SEAs from the first
round of awards made during 2002 through those grants awarded at the end
of 2004. The "Grantee and Center Characteristics" section of the June
2005 report addressed the topics of grantee and center organization
type, center maturity and prior length of operation, and student
populations targeted by centers. Given the relatively small number of
new 21st CCLC grants awarded during the first half of calendar year
2005, the domain of grantee and center characteristics associated with
programs in aggregate nationwide outlined in the June 2005 report
largely remains applicable to the current 21st CCLC grantee and center
populations. Among those characteristics that are still applicable to
the 21st CCLC grantee and center populations are the following:

-   School districts are still the most represented organizational type
    among grantees, serving as the fiscal agent on 67 percent of all
    21st CCLC grants. Community-based organizations (16 percent) and
    nationally affiliated nonprofit agencies (4 percent) collectively
    make up 20 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.

-   Elementary school students are still 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.

-   In terms of partnerships that provide grantees with connections to
    the community and additional resources that may not be available to
    the program otherwise, community-based organizations are still the
    most represented organization type, composing 22 percent of all
    partners. For-profit entities are the next most frequent partner
    type (13 percent of partners), followed by nationally affiliated
    nonprofit agencies (12 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).

-   In terms of operations, 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 were more
    likely to offer weekend hours.

In order to avoid reporting information in this report on the full
domain of grantee and center characteristics captured in PPICS that
would be largely redundant with what was outlined in the June 2005
report, we have opted instead in this report to focus on new, previously
unreported, grantee and center characteristic information obtained by
linking data housed in PPICS to the 2002--03 version of the Common Core
of Data (CCD) maintained by the National Center for Education Statistics
(NCES). The CCD dataset contains basic information about all public
schools in the United States, including information about school
location and the demographic makeup of the student population served by
a given school. In this section, information obtained from the CCD and
PPICS is used to describe the demographic makeup of those schools that
are attended by students participating in programs offered by 21st
CCLCs. In addition, a number of analyses relying upon information
obtained from the CCD also were performed in order to describe how
grantee and center characteristics vary by community type (i.e., urban,
suburban, and rural). For space considerations, results from these
analyses have been summarized in Appendix B.

To clarify some important terms, *grantees* are defined as the fiduciary
agency for a given 21st CCLC grant. Nationwide, there are a total of
2,869 active grantees entered into the Grantee Profile of PPICS that
received an SEA-provided 21st CCLC grant in June 2005 or earlier.

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 center. There are a total of 9,634 active
center*s* associated with the aforementioned 2,869 grantees found in
PPICS.

The analyses in the remainder of the report rely on two basic analytic
techniques. Most of the analyses display the proportion of grantees and
centers that fall into a particular category (e.g., the proportion of
grantees that receive funding from various sources). Some of the
analyses describe the median or mean of centers in regards to a certain
characteristic (e.g., the median per-center funding of grantees in
different locales). In this latter class of analyses, the median is used
where the variable in question is unbounded and extremely large values
would distort the mean.

## Feeder School Characteristics

In PPICS, a *feeder school* is any school attended by 21st CCLC
participants. This definition is different from the normal concept of
feeder schools as schools that graduate their students into schools
serving higher grades (e.g., 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.

The vast majority of centers (83 percent) have only one feeder school.
In most cases, the 21st CCLC program in question is housed at a public
school that serves only students from that school. In order to obtain a
greater understanding of the characteristics associated with schools
served by the 21st CCLC program, feeder school data housed in PPICS were
"matched" to the NCES CCD dataset through a series of merges predicated
on the unique identifier assigned by NCES for each school (if available
in PPICS); feeder name; or, in the case of feeder schools that also
served as centers, street address. Only public schools that were
congruent with the definition of feeder school as it is employed in
PPICS were included in the merging process. Approximately 12,683 or 85
percent of the 14,959 public feeder schools associated with centers
funded in June 2005 or earlier were matched with the CCD record for the
school in question. In this section, data obtained from the CCD through
these merges are utilized to outline the characteristics of those public
schools attended by students served by the 21st CCLC program. It is
important to point out that the information obtained from the CCD is
associated with school characteristics associated with the 2002--03
school year, meaning this data cannot be construed as providing a
complete and fully accurate picture of the present demographic
characteristics associated with the feeder schools in question.

### Title I Funding of Feeder Schools

Title I funding is offered to schools to improve the academic
achievement of disadvantaged students. Typically, SEAs provide Title I
funding to schools based on specific eligibility criteria, including the
percentage of students in poverty. Figure 4 shows the percentages of
feeder schools that are Title I eligible and that implement Title I
throughout the school.

Figure 4. Proportion of Title I Eligible and Schoolwide Title I Feeder
Schools

![](media/image5.wmf)

> *Note.* Based on 12,542 feeder schools providing data for Title I
> eligibility (84 percent of all matched feeder schools) and 10,060
> feeder schools providing data for Schoolwide Title I (68 percent of
> all matched feeder schools).

Most feeder schools (85 percent) associated with 21st CCLC centers are
Title I eligible, indicating that they serve at-risk or low-achieving
students. A somewhat smaller percentage of feeder schools (73 percent)
implement Title I programs throughout their schools.

### Ethnic Composition of Feeder Schools

Student ethnicity is an important consideration in feeder school
demographics. Afterschool activities and programs, especially those
funded by Title I, often have specific goals of reaching at-risk or
underachieving minority students. Relying on ethnicity data provided in
the CCD, Figure 5 outlines the proportion of students represented in
feeder schools associated with the 21st CCLC programs by ethnicity.
Student ethnicity categories contained in the CCD are mutually
exclusive; it is expected that a single student will be counted only in
a single ethnic category.

Figure 5. Proportion of Feeder School Students by Ethnicity

![](media/image6.wmf)

> *Note.* Based on 12,289 feeder schools providing data (82 percent of
> all matched feeder schools).

Key points related to feeder-school student ethnicity are as follows:

-   Students attending 21st CCLC feeder schools are most likely to
    identify themselves as being "Hispanic" (40 percent); "White, not
    Hispanic" (29 percent); and "Black, not Hispanic" (25 percent).

-   Although not shown in Figure 5, feeder schools in urban locales[^4]
    have a higher proportion of "Hispanic" and "Black, not Hispanic"
    students (44 percent and 31 percent, respectively) than feeder
    schools in suburban (41 percent and 21 percent, respectively) and
    rural (8 percent and 20 percent, respectively) locales. In centers
    located in rural areas, 63 percent of students are identified as
    being "White, not Hispanic."

### Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program Eligibility in Feeder Schools

Under the reauthorization of the 21st CCLC program, states are required
to award grants only to applicants that primarily will serve students
who attend schools with a high concentration of poor students or who
live in communities with a high poverty rate. To help ensure this
requirement is met by applying entities, states typically will restrict
eligibility to those applicants that propose to serve students from
schools where a certain proportion of students are eligible for the free
or reduced-price lunch program. Figure 6 shows the percentage of
students enrolled in 21st CCLC feeder schools who are eligible for the
free or reduced-price lunch program by locale (i.e., urban, suburban, or
rural location of the center):

Figure 6. Proportion of Feeder School Students Eligible for the\
Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Program by Locale

![](media/image7.wmf)

> *Note.* Based on 11,732 feeder schools providing data (79 percent of
> all matched feeder schools)

A majority of students (63 percent) at feeder schools are eligible for
free or reduced-price lunch. Rural feeder schools have the lowest
proportion of students who are eligible for the free or reduced-price
lunch program (52 percent), whereas urban (65 percent) and suburban (62
percent) feeder schools have higher rates of student eligibility for the
program.

## 

## Grantee Characteristics by APR Cohort

A number of analyses were performed to explore potential differences
between the cohorts on Grantee Profile-based characteristics. As
mentioned in the introduction, centers in Cohort 1 first reported APR
data during the 2003--04 reporting period and centers in Cohort 2 first
reported APR data during the 2004--05 reporting period. The year in
which the grantee/center first reported APR information is used only to
determine its cohort; all of the APR information reported below is from
the 2004--05 reporting period. It is important to note that only those
analyses that highlight meaningful differences among cohorts are
reported here.

### Funding Amount by Cohort

To explore the extent to which funding may have varied between the
cohorts, the ratio of funding available during the reporting period to
the number of centers associated with the grantee was calculated to
serve as a measure of the amount of funding available to each center.
When this ratio was calculated, the median per-center funding rate was
slightly higher for centers in\
Cohort 1 (\$114,224) than for the centers in Cohort 2 (\$105,947).

**Prior Programming by Cohort**

Although the largest number of grantees receiving state-administered
21st CCLC grants began operating programs at a given site with the onset
of 21st CCLC funding, many sites had been operating afterschool programs
in some fashion prior to receiving their state-administered 21st CCLC
grant. The following analysis describes, by cohort, the extent to which
centers eventually funded by a state-administered 21st CCLC grant
provided certain types of out-of-school time services prior to receiving
the grant. Figure 7 demonstrates that centers in Cohort 1 reported
slightly higher rates of programming in each area prior to receiving
their 21st CCLC grant than did those in Cohort 2. For both cohorts, just
under half of centers (45 percent for Cohort 1 and 49 percent for Cohort
2) reported providing some type of out-of-school time activity prior to
receiving their 21st CCLC grant.

**Figure 7. Proportion of Centers Identifying Prior Programming by
Cohort**

![](media/image8.wmf){width="5.125in" height="2.8645833333333335in"}

> *Note.* Based on 3,511 centers reporting from Cohort 1 and 4,329
> centers reporting from Cohort 2 (nearly 100 percent of Cohort 1 and
> Cohort 2 centers).

### Anticipated Summer Programming by School Level and Cohort

Summer programming may differ significantly from programming during the
academic year. Some centers offer increased programming to attract
students on summer vacation, while school-based centers may cease
operations entirely. Figure 8 displays the percentage of centers
anticipating offering summer programming separated by cohort and grade
levels served. 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.[^5] The "Other" category includes programs that serve (1)
elementary- and high school-age students (but not middle school-age
students), or (2) all three main grade-level categories (the vast
majority of schools in this category are of this sort).

Figure 8. Proportion of Centers Offering Summer Programming

by Cohort and Grade Levels Served

![](media/image9.wmf){width="5.427083333333333in"
height="3.5833333333333335in"}

> *Note.* Based on 3,512 centers reporting from Cohort 1 and 4,322
> centers reporting from Cohort 2 (nearly 100 percent of all Cohort 1
> and 2 centers).

In every category except middle school, a greater proportion of centers
in Cohort 1 intended to offer summer school programming than centers in
Cohort 2. Overall, only 50 percent of Cohort 2 centers intended to
provide summer programming as compared to 63 percent of Cohort 1
centers. It should be noted, however, that 71 percent of the centers
represented in Cohort 2 were associated with grantees that received
their 21st CCLC grant in calendar year 2004, with only 33 percent of
Cohort 2 centers receiving their grant award before June 2004. Given
that most\
Cohort 2 centers did not receive funding until the latter half of the
year, it is likely most of these centers did not provide summer
programming in 2004, which may explain why the intent to offer summer
programming is so much lower for this domain of centers.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc129767164 .anchor}**Section 3: Structural
Features**

Structural features of an afterschool program refer to the context and
setting in which out-of-school services are being provided. These
features include partnerships, operations, and staffing. 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. Analyses that contrast
different cohorts and that compare the current APR period to the
previous one will be reported where the results are relevant and the
differences are meaningful.

## 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
connections to the community and additional resources that may not be
available to the program otherwise. The partner information below
reflects information gathered through the APR. Partner contributions
vary greatly depending on the resources they have available and on 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 9 displays the
percentage of partners and subcontractors providing each contribution
type for the 2004--05 reporting period. A subcontractor is a type of
partner that is under contract with the grantee to provide 21st CCLC
grant-funded activities or services. 21st CCLC programs use both types
of partners to provide services and resources for their participants.

> Figure 9. Percentage of Partners and Subcontractors\
> Providing the Described Service

![](media/image10.wmf){width="5.729166666666667in"
height="3.5416666666666665in"}

> *Note.* Based on 2,296 grantees providing data (95 percent of all
> grantees required to complete an APR).

Some key points related to services provided by partners and
subcontractors are as follows:

-   Programming was still the most common partner contribution.

-   Evaluation and raising funds were the least common contributions of
    partners.

-   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

The hours of center operation are the different time slots during which
the centers offer their services. When completing the Grantee Profile
module of PPICS, grantees indicated their anticipated hours of operation
before, during, or after school; on the weekends; or during the summer.
Each of these time slots represents a different opportunity during the
day, week, or year for a student to attend the center. Figure 10
displays the percentage of centers serving students in the indicated
grade levels[^6] during various hours of operation. The information
contained in the chart below is taken from the Grantee Profile module of
PPICS and therefore represents what the grantees envision their hours of
operation to be.

Figure 10. Percentage of Centers Serving Various School Levels\
at Various Times

![](media/image11.wmf){width="5.125in" height="3.9270833333333335in"}

> *Note.* Elementary school percentage is based on 5,013 centers
> providing data; Elem/Mid percentage is based on 972 centers providing
> data; Middle school percentage is based on 1,601 centers providing
> data; Mid/High percentage is based on 383 centers providing data; High
> school percentage is based on 503 centers providing data; Other
> percentage is based on 637 centers providing data. (For all
> categories, responses represent 100 percent or nearly 100 percent of
> all centers in the Grantee Profile in the respective school-level
> category.)

Some key points related to the percentage of centers serving various
school levels at various times are as follows:

-   Almost all programs at all grade levels offered services during the
    afterschool hours.

-   About 50 percent or more of programs serving each grade level
    offered summer programming.

-   Programs serving older age groups tended to offer more weekend
    programming.

Anticipated hours of programming also were examined by cohort. Cohort 2
was less likely to offer programming for all time periods except after
school. These differences are relatively minor (10 points or less)
except for summer, which is examined in Figure 8.

Centers may choose to change their hours of programming in order to more
appropriately target the needs of their student populations. It is
possible to observe the extent of these changes across years. Figure 11
displays the percentage of centers reporting during both the 2004 and
2005 APR reporting periods that started or stopped offering programming
during a given time period between the two reports (that is, they did
not offer programming in that area in 2003--04 and did in 2004--05 or
vice versa). These data come from the APR and represent the actual
reported hours, rather than those anticipated in the Grantee Profile.
Only school-year data were collected for the 2003--04 APR, so no summer
comparisons can be made.

> Figure 11. Programs that Started or Stopped Offering Programming
> During a Given Time Period
>
> Between the 2004 and 2005 APRs

![](media/image12.wmf){width="5.125in" height="3.03125in"}

> *Note.* Based on 3,508 centers providing data (nearly 100 percent of
> all centers that reported in both the 2003--04 APR and the 2004--05
> APR).

In general, the percentage of programs that stopped offering programming
during a specific time period was balanced by other centers that started
offering programming during that time period.

### Weekly Hours of Operation 

In the Annual Performance Report, centers identified the number of hours
and days per week that they operated during the summer of 2004 and the
2004--05 school year. Figure 12 summarizes the proportion of centers
that fall into the given ranges of hours and days of operation.

> Figure 12. Percentage of Centers Open Certain Hours per Week During
> the School Year and Summer

![](media/image13.wmf){width="5.145833333333333in" height="2.90625in"}

> *Note.* Based on 7,466 centers providing data for school year 2004--05
> (98 percent of all centers in the APR) and 3,738 centers providing
> data for summer 2004 (81 percent of all centers in the APR).

Summer programs tended to run more hours per week than school year
programs. Summer programs were typically open more than 21 hours per
week, whereas school-year programs were typically open 11 to 15 hours
per week. More precisely, the average number of hours per week during
the school year was 14.2, compared to 23.5 hours per week during the
summer.

## Staffing

Center staffing is a crucial factor in the success of afterschool
programming. Staff members interact directly with program participants
in providing grant-funded services. The quality of staff can be the
difference between an effective program and a mediocre one. The success
of afterschool programs is critically dependent on students forming
personal connections with the staff, so that they will choose to return
regularly (Eccles & Gootman, 2002; Rosenthal & Vandell, 1996).

Table 2 displays the median number of staff per center, broken down by
school year or summer and by whether the staff members were paid or
unpaid.

Table 2. Median Number of Staff per Center During the School Year and
Summer

  -------------- ---------------- ------------------- -------------------
  **Time         **Paid Staff**   **Volunteer Staff** **Number of Centers
  Period**                                            Reporting**

  School Year    11               3                   7,401

  Summer         9                1                   3,199
  -------------- ---------------- ------------------- -------------------

### Prevalence of Center Staff of Different Types

As part of the Annual Performance Report, information was obtained on
the number of 21st CCLC staff of various types that regularly staffed
centers during summer 2004 and the 2004--05 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
volunteers. Figure 13 and Figure 14 display the 2004--05 data for number
of school year and summer staff of the given type. Note that the scales
on the two charts are different. There are many more school year staff
than summer staff. Staff types in the charts use the following data
labels:

-   Teachers: School-day teachers

-   College: College students

-   High School: High school students

-   Parents: Parents

-   Youth Dev: Youth development workers

-   Comm: Other community workers

-   Oth Sch Staff: Other nonteaching school staff

-   Coordinators: Center administrators and coordinators\*

-   Non-school-day: Other nonschool-day staff with some or no college\*

-   Other: Other

> \* This category was added to the Annual Performance Report during the
> 2004--05 reporting period. APRs completed prior to this reporting
> period did not ask respondents to specify the number of staff in this
> category.
>
> Figure 13. Number of School-Year Staff of the Given Type

![](media/image14.wmf){width="5.625in" height="3.6354166666666665in"}

> *Note.* Based on 7,466 centers providing data (95 percent of all
> centers in the APR).
>
> Figure 14. Number of Summer Staff of the Given Type

![](media/image15.wmf){width="5.520833333333333in"
height="4.104166666666667in"}

> *Note.* Based on 3,738 centers providing data (48 percent of all
> centers in the APR).

Some key points related to paid and volunteer staff types in the school
year and summer are as follows:

-   School-day teachers are by far the highest proportion of afterschool
    staff.

-   School-day teachers, youth development workers, and nonteaching
    school staff are often paid for their afterschool time, while
    parents and other community members are generally volunteers.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc129767168 .anchor}

# Section 4: Programming

The mission of the 21st Century Community Learning Center 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 2004--05 APR,
the following section describes the breadth and intensity of 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 activity or service delivery, or activities targeting a
particular participant population; and (2) the subject areas or
educational content addressed by the programming.

Activity information collected as part of the 2004--05 APR allowed
respondents to classify a single activity both by category and subject
area. For example, a center may have offered a rocketry club in which
participants learned to build and launch rockets while also studying
astronomy. In this case, this activity would be classifiable as an
Academic Enrichment Learning Program (category of activity) *and* as a
Science Educational Activity (subject area of activity). A similar
degree of flexibility was afforded to respondents when a single activity
could be classified in more than one category. For example, a center
that offered an activity with both tutoring and mentoring components
would classify the activity in both the tutoring and mentoring
categories on the APR.

## Programming Across Categories of Activity or Service

This section describes the prevalence and intensity of programming in
different categories of activity or service. The common categories of
activities offered during 21st CCLC programming undertaken during the
2004--05 reporting period, along with their abbreviations, are as
follows:

-   Remed: Academic improvement/remediation programs

-   Enrich: Academic enrichment learning programs

-   Tutor: Tutoring/homework help

-   Ment: 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

-   CareerYouth: Career/job training for youth

-   Library: Expanded library service hours

-   Comm: Community service or service-learning programs

-   Lead: Activities that promote youth leadership

-   Family: Programs that promote parental involvement and family
    literacy

-   CareerAdult: Career/job training for adults

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.
For the 2004--05 reporting period, the career/job training category was
articulated as two categories for the first time: one for youth and one
for adults. Figure 15 shows the proportion of centers offering different
categories of activities and services for both years of data collected.

Figure 15. Proportion of Centers Providing School-Year Programming

by Category, Across Years

![](media/image16.wmf){width="5.895833333333333in"
height="2.9270833333333335in"}

> *Note.* Based on 7,452 centers reporting data in 2004--05 (95 percent
> of all centers in APR), and 3,578 centers reporting in 2003--04 (98
> percent of all centers in APR). Prior to the 2004--05 reporting
> period, career/job training appeared as a single category on the APR
> activities page of PPICS. As of 2004--05, career/job training for
> youth and career/job training for adults were collected in separate
> categories.

Some key points about prevalence of categories of programming include
the following:

-   Similar to last year, the vast majority of centers offered
    activities for academic enrichment, recreation, and academic
    assistance (e.g., remediation or tutoring). More than half of the
    centers reported programming for drug and violence prevention,
    promoting youth leadership, and promoting parental involvement or
    family literacy.

-   The median number of categories of programming that centers reported
    was seven, the same as last year. However, the proportion of centers
    offering four specific categories of activity decreased by 9 percent
    or more.[^7] These categories were Remed, Truant, Drug, and Library.
    By contrast, no category increased more than 3 percent.[^8]

To understand the decreased prevalence in programming, it is useful to
disaggregate the results for the 2004--05 school year by center cohort.
Figure 16 displays the prevalence of five categories in which there was
a decrease from last year.

Figure 16. Differences in the Prevalence of School Year Programming\
by Category Between Cohorts 1 and 2

![](media/image17.wmf){width="5.125in" height="3.0in"}

> *Note.* Based on 6,782 centers in 2004--05 (representing 86 percent of
> centers in the APR) and 3,491 centers in 2003--04 (representing 96
> percent of centers in the APR).

Much of the decrease in prevalence in the 2004--05 school year comes
from the lower levels of programming among Cohort 2. However, centers in
Cohort 1 also appear to have lower levels of programming compared to
last year, consistent with the overall trend reported above.

**Center-Level Analysis**. It is possible to examine the percentage
change in the number of categories of activities offered by each center
compared to the previous year. Of the 3,398 centers that continued from
last year, 19 percent of centers were unchanged from last year, 43
percent of centers reported an increase in the range of categories of
programming, and 38 percent of centers reported a decrease. In summary,
nearly as many centers decreased the breadth of programming as increased
and a large slice remained the same.

### Prevalence of Programming by Category in Summer School

During the summer months, it is reasonable to assume that the
programming focus of centers would change due to a number of factors
(e.g., fewer teachers on staff, the lack of homework for students not in
summer school, and access to additional recreational activities). Figure
17 depicts the range of programming for the summer of 2004, with the
school year findings presented side-by-side for comparison.

Figure 17. Percentage of Centers Providing Programming\
During the School Year and Summer of 2004--05, by Category

![](media/image18.wmf){width="5.197916666666667in"
height="5.239583333333333in"}

> *Note.* Based on 3,133 centers reporting data during the summer (68
> percent of all centers in the APR), and 7,452 centers reporting data
> during the school year (95 percent of all centers in the APR).

There are two main points about the breadth of summer programming by
category:

-   The prevalence of tutoring during the summer was drastically lower
    than during the school year. This result may reflect the absence of
    homework during the summer.

-   Centers typically engage in a narrower range of activities during
    the summer. On average, summer school programs offered 6.1
    categories, whereas school-year programs offered 7.4 categories.

### Intensity of Programming in Categories of Activities

In addition to breadth, another way to describe the type of programming
is its intensity. Intensity is defined as the typical number of hours
per week devoted to an activity. Figure 18 depicts the average intensity
of each category of programming, for both the school year and
summer.[^9]

Figure 18. Intensity of Programming by Category

![](media/image19.wmf){width="5.15625in" height="5.3125in"}

> *Note.* Based on 3,133 centers reporting data during the summer (68
> percent of all centers in the APR) and 7,452 centers reporting data
> during the school year (95 percent of all centers in the APR).

Some key points about the intensity of programming in categories of
activity include the following:

-   The results closely parallel the 2004 findings for school-year
    programming. Services addressing academic needs (e.g., academic
    remediation, enrichment, and tutoring) are typically offered between
    5½ and 6 hours per week. Recreational services are also offered on
    average about 5½ hours during the typical week.

-   The drug/violence prevention and leadership categories are among the
    least intensely offered, despite being in the second tier of most
    frequently reported categories of programming.

-   Summer programming is more intensive than school year programming.
    This result reflects the findings in Figure 18---namely, that most
    programs operate for a greater number of hours per week in the
    summer than during the school year.

## 

## Subject Area of Activity or Service

This section describes the prevalence and intensity of programming in
subject areas. The subject areas of programming offered during 21st CCLC
programming undertaken during the 2004--05 reporting period, along with
their abbreviations, are as follows:

-   Read: Reading/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

-   Social: Cultural activities/social studies

-   Health: Health/nutrition-related activities

Figure 19 depicts the percentage of centers offering activities and
services in each academic subject area, for both the school year and
summer. Because the findings are mostly unchanged from last year, only
the current year's proportions are presented.

Figure 19. Percentage of Centers Offering Programming in Subject Areas

![](media/image20.wmf){width="5.114583333333333in" height="3.1875in"}

> *Note.* Based on 7,363 centers reporting data for the 2004--05 school
> year (94 percent of all centers in the APR) and 3,053 centers
> reporting data for the summer (66 percent of all centers in the APR).

The relative proportion of centers offering programming in the different
subject areas during the school year is similar to the previous year, as
summarized in the following points:

-   Reflecting the program's mandate to enhance academic achievement in
    core curricular areas, more than 90 percent of centers offered
    educational activities in mathematics or reading. About two thirds
    of centers offered science education activities.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   More than 85 percent of centers offered activities involving arts
    and music. About two thirds offered technology education program,
    cultural activities, or health and nutrition-related activities.

-   Only about one fifth of centers offered entrepreneurial education
    programs.

-   Across every subject, programming was slightly less prevalent during
    the summer than during the regular school year. The mean number of
    subject areas for each center was only slightly lower during the
    summer (5.3) than during the school year (5.8). However, reading
    education is roughly as prevalent during the summer as during the
    school year.

**Center-Level Analysis.** It is possible to examine the percent change
in the range of subject areas of activities offered by each center
compared to its previous year. Of the 3,350 centers that continued from
last year, more than one third of all centers did not report any change
in the number of subjects of programming that they offered; 37 percent
of centers reported an increase in the range of categories of
programming, and 28 percent of centers reported a decrease. The
distribution of centers on the percent change in breadth of subjects
reflects a similar balance; the interquartile range of this distribution
was --12 percent to 20 percent. In summary, it does not appear that
there was an overall trend towards expanding the range of subjects
addressed in programming among centers that continued from last year.

### Intensity of Programming in Subject Areas

In terms of the typical number of hours per week devoted to a particular
subject area, Figure 20 displays the average weekly provision of
programming during which a given subject area was addressed.

Figure 20. Intensity of Programming by Subject

![](media/image21.wmf){width="5.125in" height="3.1354166666666665in"}

> *Note.* Based on 7,363 centers reporting data for the 2004--05 school
> year (94 percent of all centers in the APR) and 3,053 centers
> reporting data for the summer (66 percent of all centers in the APR).

The average number of hours of programming per week in many ways
corresponds in pattern to the prevalence of programming, with reading
and mathematics education programs among the most intensely addressed
subject areas. One anomaly worthy of note is that the intensity of
"other" programming is proportionally greater than the prevalence of
"other" categories. This result may reflect special activities such as
sailing camp or field trips that are both uncommon and intense. As with
the previous discussion of intensity of programming by category of
activity, subject-area programming is clearly more intense during the
summer.

# 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 2004--05 reporting period were asked to identify both
(1) the total number of students who participated in the center's
programming over the course of 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 2004--05 reporting period.
The former number 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 students who partook of the program sufficiently 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. In 2005, the median number of total
attendees was 116, and the median number of regular attendees was 69.
The data reported by centers indicate a great deal of variation in the
total number of attendees. Figure 21 provides an overall view of the
range of attendance at centers active during the 2004--05 reporting
period, describing total and regular attendees.

Figure 21. Proportion of Centers With Different Ranges of Attendees

![](media/image22.wmf){width="5.239583333333333in" height="2.65625in"}

> *Note.* This chart excludes centers with zero attendees. Based on
> 7,535 centers providing data (96 percent of all centers in the APR).

As shown in Figure 21, one third of the centers have 50 or fewer regular
attendees, and another third have between 51 and 100 total attendees.
This pattern does not differ from last year.

### Attendance Comparisons Across Years

It is possible to look across years to examine the change in the median
number of attendees. Figure 22 reports the median attendees for both
last year's APR and the APR reporting process completed for the 2004--05
reporting period. As shown in Figure 22, the ratio of regular to total
attendees has increased somewhat from last year.

Figure 22. Median School Year Center Attendance in Different Program
Years

![](media/image23.wmf){width="5.125in" height="2.8645833333333335in"}

> *Note.* This chart excludes centers with zero attendees. The 2005 data
> are based on 4061 centers reporting data for total attendees that did
> not provide programming during summer 2005 (52 percent of all centers
> in the APR) and 4,052 centers reporting data for regular attendees (52
> percent of all centers in the APR). The 2004 data are based on 3,604
> centers (99 percent of all centers in the APR) reporting to the APR
> for total attendees and 3,600 centers (99 percent of all centers in
> the APR) reporting for regular attendees.[^10]

### 

### Attendance Comparisons Across Cohorts

This section compares cohorts of centers, as indicated by whether
centers are reporting their APR data for the first or second time. Those
reporting for the first time (i.e., Cohort 2) are likely to be newly
started centers, which may vary for several of the reasons described in
the introduction to this report. Figure 23 describes the median
attendance for each cohort.

Figure 23. Median Center Attendance in 2005 by Cohort of First Year
Reported

![](media/image24.wmf){width="5.25in" height="2.8645833333333335in"}

> *Note.* This chart excludes centers with zero attendees. Based on
> 7,535 centers providing data\
> (96 percent of all centers in the APR).

Centers in Cohort 1 served a significantly higher number of total
attendees during the span of the 2005 reporting period (both school year
and summer) than centers associated with Cohort 2, although the median
number of regular attendees was largely equivalent across both Cohorts.
A significant portion of the difference between Cohort 1 and Cohort 2
centers in terms of the median number of total attendees served can be
explained by the fact that a high proportion of Cohort 1 centers
provided summer programming (63 percent) as compared to centers in
Cohort 2 (32 percent). When comparing centers that offered programming
only during the school year by cohort, very little difference is found
to exist between the median number of total and regular attendees
between the cohorts.

### Attendance Comparisons Across Years Within Centers

It is possible to examine change in attendance within centers by
comparing attendance during the current year to the previous year within
each center. The median increase in total attendees was five[^11], and
among regular attendees, it was two.[^12] In addition, 55 percent of
centers reported an increase in total attendees from 2004, and 53
percent reported an increase in regular attendees. Thus, it appears that
there was a small tendency for Cohort 1 centers to increase their
attendance from year to year.

## Characteristics of Student Attendees

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 sets of analyses that follow examine attendance in relation to
ethnicity, participation in special services, and gender. For the sake
of simplicity, these analyses will display the results for regular
attendees where the proportions are similar for regular and total
attendees. To begin with, Figure 24 shows the proportion of program
attendees who belong to different racial and ethnic categories.

Figure 24. Proportion of Attendees in Different Ethnic Categories,
Across Years

![](media/image25.wmf){width="5.833333333333333in"
height="3.2083333333333335in"}

> *Note.* Based on 6,342 centers providing data in the 2004--05 APR (81
> percent of all centers in the APR) and 3,341 centers providing data in
> the 2003--04 APR (92 percent of all centers in the APR).

The following are some key points about the ethnicity of student
attendees:

-   Compared to last year, there is a greater proportion of Hispanic
    attendees and a smaller proportion of white and black attendees. The
    increase in attendance of Hispanic attendees was most pronounced
    among regular attendees.

-   The source of the increase in the proportion of Hispanic students in
    2005 are Cohort 2 centers. Among regular attendees in Cohort 2, 38
    percent are Hispanic, compared to 29 percent for Cohort 1, and 27
    percent as reported in the 2004 APR.

## Special Service Utilization of Student Attendees

As part of the APR reporting process, centers also were asked to report
the number of students in their program who participated in the
following special services or programs or who were characterized by the
following characteristics or attributes. The services or programs, along
with their abbreviations are as follows:

-   LEP: Limited English proficiency

-   FRPL: Free or reduced-price lunch

-   SpecED: Special needs or disabilities

Figure 25 describes the percentage of regular attendees who belonged to
each category by APR year.

Figure 25. Proportion of Regular Attendees Receiving Student Services
Across Years

![](media/image26.wmf){width="5.135416666666667in" height="2.875in"}

> *Note.* Based on 7,433 centers providing data in 2004--05 APR (94
> percent of all centers in the APR) and 3,487 centers providing data in
> the 2003--04 APR (96 percent of all centers in the APR).

Although the proportion of LEP and special-needs students appears
unchanged, there appears to be a drop in the proportion of students who
are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Among regular attendees,
the proportion fell from 64 percent in 2004 to 55 percent in 2005.
Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 had 58 percent and 51 percent of students eligible
for free or reduced-price lunch, respectively.

In order to further investigate the decrease in FRPL-eligible students,
we calculated the change in proportion of such students from 2004 to
2005 on the center level. The mean change was a\
3 percent decline in the number regular attendees that were FRPL
eligible. This decline appears to be explained by 293 centers that
reported some percentage of their regular attendees were FRPL eligible
when submitting their 2004 APR and then reported zero regular attendees
being eligible for the program when completing their 2005 APR. This
change seems suspect and likely implies that the information provided by
these sites should be treated as missing data. When these 293 centers
are removed from FRPL calculations, 64 percent of students served by\
Cohort 1 centers during the 2005 reporting period were found to be FRPL
eligible, a finding equivalent with the 2004 APR percentage. In similar
fashion, if the overall percentage of regular attendees that were FRPL
eligible is recalculated for the 2005 reporting period excluding these
293 centers, the overall percentage of regular attendees that were FRPL
eligible climbs slightly to 57 percent.

## Student Attendance by Gender

We also examined the relation of attendance and gender. Figure 26
depicts the gender distribution of regular attendees.

Figure 26. Gender of Regular Attendees in 2005

![](media/image27.wmf){width="3.7083333333333335in"
height="2.2708333333333335in"}

> *Note.* Based on 6,596 centers reporting data in 2004--05 (84 percent
> of all centers in the APR).

Figure 26 illustrates that regular attendees are almost equally divided
among males and females. However, the number of regular attendees whose
gender has not been specified has increased from 3 percent last year to
8 percent this year.

## Attendance by Grade Level

The 21st CCLC program can be targeted towards students at all grade
levels, although centers most typically gear their programs towards
elementary students. The attendance data displayed in Figure 27 depicts
the participation of students in various grade levels during the
2004--05 reporting period. In other words, it depicts the percentage of
attendees (regular and all) who were in each grade.

Figure 27. Proportion of Attendees in Different Grade Levels

![](media/image28.wmf){width="6.46875in" height="2.5208333333333335in"}

*Note.* Based on 6,571 centers reporting data in 2004--05 (84 percent of
all centers in the APR).

As reported last year, the prevalence of regular attendees in the
program peaks in late elementary school, then begins to drop off
continuously through middle school (Grades 6--8). As students reach the
high school grades, there is a marked dropoff in attendance.

## Feeder Schools and Attendance

As previously mentioned, feeder school characteristics may be used to
determine the extent to which 21st CCLC participants reflect their
surrounding communities. This section of the report compares the extent
to which 21st CCLC participants compare with the feeder school
population on several key attendance characteristics. A total of 11,675
feeder schools were identified in the APR as being attended by students
during the 2004--05 reporting period. Of these, 11,088 schools were
identified as public schools that were congruent with the definition of
*feeder school* as it is employed in PPICS. Of these 11,088 feeder
schools, 9,371 or 85 percent were matched successfully with school
demographic information obtained from the CCD.

### Feeder School Population Attending the 21st CCLC

Because 21st CCLC programs draw their participating students from one or
more feeder schools, it seems appropriate to explore the extent to which
the student population associated with the center's feeder schools
attended programming provided at the center in question. Figure 28
outlines the proportion of students attending center feeder schools that
participated in 21st CCLC programming during the 2004--05 reporting
period.

Figure 28. Total and Regular Center Attendees as a Proportion of

Total Feeder School Students by Cohort

![](media/image29.wmf)

> *Note.* Total number of feeder schools providing 2004--05 data: 8,259
> (74.5 percent of all feeder schools in the APR)

Key points related to center attendees as a proportion of the total
feeder school student population are as follows:

-   For both APR cohorts, less than 20 percent of the total student
    population associated with center feeder schools attended 21st CCLC
    programming during the course of the 2004--05 reporting period.

-   Student meeting the definition of a *regular attendee* represented
    10 percent of the total student population associated with center
    feeder schools for both APR cohorts.

### 

### Attendance and Poverty 

By examining the feeder school population, we can assess the extent to
which the 21st CCLC program may address the needs of students with
diverse or unique backgrounds. Both centers and feeder schools report
the number of students in attendance who are eligible for the free or
reduced-price lunch program. Eligibility for these programs indicates
that the student may be academically at risk due to poverty status.
Figure 29 describes by APR cohort the percentage of total students
associated with center feeder schools and centers that are eligible for
the free or reduced-price lunch program.

Figure 29. Student Attendees Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch by
Cohort

![](media/image30.wmf)

Note: Based on 7,349 feeder schools providing data (66 percent of all
feeder schools in the APR).

For Cohort 1 centers, feeder schools have a noticeably higher percentage
of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (70 percent) than
both total and regular attendees participating in 21st CCLC programming
(both 57 percent). In Cohort 2, total student and regular attendees are
even less likely to be eligible for the free or reduced-price lunch
program (53 percent and 49 percent respectively) even though the rate of
eligibility among the student population served by the associated feeder
schools remains comparable to Cohort 1 levels.

### Student Attendees From Public and Private Schools

As outlined in the *Non-Regulatory Guidance* (Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education, 2003), 21st CCLC grantees are expected to provide
opportunities for students attending both public and private schools in
the area served by the grant to participate in program activities. Given
this requirement, an effort was made to identify private schools served
by 21st CCLC grantees by matching the APR-based feeder school dataset
against information obtained from the 2003--2004 Private School Universe
Survey maintained by the National Center for Education Statistics. These
matches yielded a total of 307 private schools that were found to be
associated with centers represented in the APR for the 2004--05
reporting period. These 307 private schools were then linked with
information about the 21st CCLC grantee they were associated with,
including information about the type of organization the grantee in
question was identified as being (e.g., school district, community-based
organization, faith-based organization). A similar process was
undertaken with the 9,371 public school records that had been matched
against the CCD, as described on page 40 under "Feeder Schools and
Attendance." Analyses were then conducted to calculate what percentage
of the 307 private schools were associated with a particular grantee
type. A similar set of analyses was performed for the 9,371 public
school records as well. The product of these analyses is summarized in
Figure 30.

The abbreviations of organization types used in Figure 30 are as
follows:

-   SD: School district

-   CBO: Community-based organization or other nonprofit organization

-   NPA: Nationally affiliated nonprofit agency

-   EA: Regional/intermediate education agency

-   FBO: Faith-based organization

-   COU: College or university

-   UG: Other unit of city or county government

Figure 30. Percentage of Public and Private Feeder Schools\
Associated With a Given Grantee Type

> ![](media/image31.wmf){width="5.125in" height="2.8333333333333335in"}
>
> *Note.* Based on 9,678 feeder schools providing data (83 percent of
> all feeder schools in the APR).

Key points related to the percentage of public and private feeder
schools associated with a given grantee type are as follows:

-   The majority of both public and private schools represented in the
    2004--05 APR are associated with grants held by school districts (68
    percent and 54 percent, respectively).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   With the exception of grantees that are school districts and
    regional/intermediate education agencies, grantees falling within
    the remaining organizational type categories were found to serve a
    higher percentage of the total *private* feeder school population,
    as compared to the percentage of the total *public* feeder school
    population they served through programming during the 2004--05
    reporting period.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc129767178 .anchor}**Section 6: Student Achievement
and\
Academic Behavioral Outcomes**

This section presents information on the success of the 21st Century
Community Learning Centers program in achieving its goal of having a
positive impact on student achievement and academic behaviors. More
specifically, this section describes the extent to which centers met the
targeted performance levels on the Government Performance and Results
Act (GPRA) indicators identified for the program. The following analyses
are based on the Annual Performance Report (APR) for activities
undertaken during the summer of 2004 and the 2004--05 school year.

## 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 2004--05 reporting period.

-   Percentage of regular program participants whose mathematics and
    English language arts grades improved from fall to spring.

-   Percentage of regular program participants whose achievement test
    scores improved from not proficient to proficient or above on state
    assessments (This measure replaced the previous indicator:
    *Percentage of regular program participants who meet or exceed the
    proficient level of performance on state assessments in
    reading/language arts and mathematics*).

-   Percentage of regular program participants with teacher-reported
    improvement in homework completion and class participation.

-   Percentage of regular program participants with teacher-reported
    improvements in student behavior.

-   Percentage of 21st Century Community Learning Centers reporting
    emphasis in at least one core academic area (i.e., reading,
    mathematics, or science).

-   Percentage of 21st Century Community Learning Centers offering
    enrichment and support activities in technology.

-   Percentage of 21st Century Community Learning Centers offering
    enrichment and support activities in other areas.

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 provided only
for those students who met the definition of *regular attendee* by
participating in 30 days or more of activity at a center during the
reporting period. States selected *at least* one of the following four
impact categories for their grantees to report on:

-   **Grades.** Data on change in student grades in mathematics and
    reading/language arts based on a fall-to-spring comparison.

-   **State Assessment Current Year.** State assessment data on student
    proficiency in mathematics and reading/language arts, based on
    testing conducted during the 2004--05 school year. 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 C describes the
    framework that was relied upon to convert these proficiency levels.

-   **State Assessment Cross Year.** States were given the option of
    reporting on changes in proficiency levels in mathematics and
    reading/language arts. This option required respondents to compare a
    student's 2003--04 state assessment results with 2004--05 results
    for those participants who were regular attendees at the 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 converted to the federally defined
    performance categories of *basic, proficient,* and *advanced* using
    the framework described in Appendix C. 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.*** Same as the Standard approach, except that
        grantees reported change in proficiency level disaggregated by
        the student's previous proficiency level witnessed on the
        assessment taken during the 2003--04 school year (e.g., the
        number of students tested at the basic level last year who
        increased their proficiency level this year or stayed the same).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **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:

    -   ***Federal teacher survey***, developed by Learning Point
        Associates, to assess academic-related behavioral change in
        student participants corresponding to the GPRA indicators for
        the program. Grantees administer the survey to regular
        school-day teachers of program attendees[^13].

    -   ***State teacher survey***, previously developed by the state,
        to assess behavioral change.[^14]

Figure 31 describes the number of states selecting different options for
reporting student achievement and behavioral outcomes for the 2004--05
reporting period, as compared to the 2003--04 reporting period.

> Figure 31. Number of States Selecting Different Reporting Options
>
> ![](media/image32.wmf){width="5.260416666666667in"
> height="3.2291666666666665in"}
>
> *Note.* Based on 53 states providing data (100 percent of all states
> in the APR).

Some key points related to the number of states selecting reporting
options for impact categories are as follows:

-   Most states reported state assessment results only for the testing
    conducted during the 2004--05 school year, rather than indicating
    how those results have changed from the previous year (i.e., the
    cross-year comparisons). It is important to note that the GPRA
    indicator based on the percentage of regular program participants
    whose achievement test scores improved from not proficient to
    proficient or above on state assessments is based on the data
    provided by those states that selected the State Assessment Cross
    Year Disaggregated option. Only five states selected this option for
    the 2004--05 APR.

-   Thirty-nine states opted to report more than one impact category,
    whereas 14 selected only one category to report.

## GPRA Indicators

Results obtained from the 2004--05 APR were used to construct the data
needed to report on the GPRA indicators for the 21st CCLC program. As
mentioned previously, these indicators focus both on elements of service
delivery and the program's effectiveness in improving student
achievement academic-related behaviors. Table 3 provides a summary of
the status of these indicators for the 2004 and 2005 APRs.

Table 3. GPRA Performance Indicators

+------------------------------------------+----------+-------+-------+
| **GPRA Performance Indicator**           | **Per    | **    | **    |
|                                          | formance | 2003- | 2004- |
|                                          | T        | -04** | -05** |
|                                          | argets** |       |       |
|                                          |          | *     | *     |
|                                          |          | *Repo | *Repo |
|                                          |          | rting | rting |
|                                          |          | Per   | Per   |
|                                          |          | iod** | iod** |
+------------------------------------------+----------+-------+-------+
| > Regular attendees demonstrating        | 45%      | 4     | 4     |
| > improved grades in reading/language    |          | 4.55% | 1.47% |
| > arts                                   |          |       |       |
+------------------------------------------+----------+-------+-------+
| > Regular attendees demonstrating        | 45%      | 4     | 3     |
| > improved grades in mathematics         |          | 0.84% | 8.82% |
+------------------------------------------+----------+-------+-------+
| > Regular attendees demonstrating        | ?        | [^15] | 27.9% |
| > improved\                              |          |       |       |
| > state assessment results in            |          |       |       |
| > reading/language arts                  |          |       |       |
+------------------------------------------+----------+-------+-------+
| > Regular attendees demonstrating        | ?        | [^16] | 2     |
| > improved\                              |          |       | 9.77% |
| > state assessment results in            |          |       |       |
| > mathematics                            |          |       |       |
+------------------------------------------+----------+-------+-------+
| > Regular attendees demonstrating        | 75%      | 6     | 7     |
| > improved\                              |          | 8.72% | 4.98% |
| > homework completion and class          |          |       | [^17] |
| > participation                          |          |       |       |
+------------------------------------------+----------+-------+-------+
| > Regular attendees demonstrating        | 75%      | 6     | 7     |
| > improved\                              |          | 4.04% | 1.08% |
| > student behavior                       |          |       | [^18] |
+------------------------------------------+----------+-------+-------+
| > Centers emphasizing at least one core  | 85%      | 9     | 9     |
| > academic area                          |          | 7.73% | 5.06% |
+------------------------------------------+----------+-------+-------+
| > Centers offering enrichment and        | 85%      | 6     | 6     |
| > support activities in technology       |          | 5.61% | 5.75% |
+------------------------------------------+----------+-------+-------+
| > Centers offering enrichment and        | 85%      | 9     | 9     |
| > support activities in other areas      |          | 2.51% | 4.09% |
+------------------------------------------+----------+-------+-------+

Some key points related to performance relative to the GPRA indicators
are as follows:

-   Most indicators of student achievement/behavior show the program
    slightly below the performance target. Of some interest, however, is
    the proportion of regular attendees witnessing improvement in state
    assessment results in both reading/language arts and mathematics.
    Here, just under 30 percent of regular attendees went from below
    proficient to proficient or above on assessments taken during the
    2003--04 and 2004--05 school years, respectively. It is important to
    note, however, that these results are based on assessment scores
    from a total of only five states.

-   Indicators of center emphasis are either well above the performance
    target (core academic area and enrichment/support activities) or
    well below it (technology).

-   Centers reported a smaller percentage of students who witnessed an
    improvement in grades this year as compared to last year.

-   A higher percentage of students were reported as demonstrating
    improvement in homework completion and class participation as well
    as overall academic behavior; however, this change likely is due to
    a modification made to the survey instrument in question, which
    allowed teachers to identify if a given student did not need to
    improve on a given behavior. This option was not present on the
    2003--04 survey.

## Change in Math and Reading/Language Arts Grades and Proficiency Levels

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. The two measures reported are
grades (reported by 28 states) and federal proficiency level (reported
by 15 states). For the grades measure, an increase in a grade is when a
student's spring semester grade is at least half a grade higher than his
or her fall semester grade. For academic proficiency, each state
identified three or more levels of proficiency (as measured by
state-administered achievement tests) for reading/language arts and
mathematics. An increase is classified as moving from a lower to a
higher category. Note that this is a different measure from the GPRA
indicator that reports percentage of regular attendees moving from below
proficient to proficient or above on state assessments. Figure 32
displays the percentage of regular attendees witnessing an increase in
grades and proficiency levels as reported during the 2003--04 and
2004--05 APRs.

> Figure 32. Increase in Grades and State Assessment Scores by APR Group
> (2003--04 and 2004--05)

![](media/image33.wmf){width="5.875in" height="3.3333333333333335in"}

> *Note.* Based on 1,828 centers providing data for grades for 2003--04
> (50 percent of all centers in the APR), 4,481 centers providing data
> for grades for 2004--05 (57 percent of all centers in the APR), 711
> centers providing data for state assessment for 2003--04 (20 percent
> of all centers in the APR), and 2,959 centers providing data for state
> assessment for 2004--05 (37 percent of all centers in the APR).

One key point related to the increase in grades and state assessment
scores for 2003--04 and 2004--05 is that the percentage of students who
witnessed an increase in their mathematics and reading grades declined
slightly this year, while the percentage of students who witnessed an
increase in their mathematics and reading proficiency levels improved
slightly.

Figure 33 presents the percentage of regular attendees demonstrating
improved performance on grades and state assessments for the 2004--05
reporting period split by APR cohort, based on whether the centers are
reporting for the first or second time this year.

> Figure 33. 2004--05 Increase in Grades and State Assessment Scores by
> Cohort

![](media/image34.wmf){width="5.885416666666667in" height="3.34375in"}

> *Note.* Based on 1,883 centers providing data for grades for Cohort 1
> (54 percent of all centers in Cohort 1), 2,598 centers providing data
> for grades for Cohort 2 (60 percent of all centers in Cohort 2), 1,612
> centers providing data for state assessment for Cohort 1 (46 percent
> of all centers in Cohort 1), and 1,347 centers providing data for
> state assessment for Cohort 2 (31 percent of all centers in Cohort 2).

One key point related to the increase in grades and state assessment
scores for 2004--05 by group is that the percentage of students
witnessing an increase in their mathematics and reading grades and
proficiency levels was slightly higher in centers from Cohort 2 than
those from Cohort 1.

## Proficiency Levels Attained by Regular Attendees

The NCLB Act outlines three categories of proficiency (as measured by
state-administered achievement tests) for reading/language arts and
mathematics: basic, proficient, and advanced. Student proficiency levels
in core academic areas indicate the type of academic assistance that
centers ought to provide for their students. Figure 34 depicts the
proportion of regular attendees from both the 2004 and 2005 APRs in 31
states that scored in each federal proficiency category on the
reading/language arts assessments administered in their state during the
2003--04 and 2004--05 school years.

> Figure 34. Percentage of Regular Attendees Attaining Federal
> Proficiency Levels in Reading and Language Arts by APR

![](media/image35.wmf){width="5.114583333333333in"
height="3.0104166666666665in"}

> *Note.* Based on 2,202 centers providing data for 2003--04 (60 percent
> of all centers in the APR) and 5,008 centers providing data for
> 2004--05 (64 percent of all centers in the APR).

Figure 35 displays the percentage of students scoring at each
proficiency level on the 2004--05 state assessment in reading/language
arts, as split by APR cohort based on whether or not they first reported
in 2003--04.

Figure 35. Percentage of Regular Attendees Attaining Federal Proficiency
Levels\
During the 2004--05 School Year in Reading and Language Arts\
by 2004--05 APR Cohort

![](media/image36.wmf){width="5.114583333333333in"
height="3.0104166666666665in"}

> *Note.* Based on 2,309 centers providing data for Cohort 1 (66 percent
> of all centers in the APR) and 2,699 centers providing data for Cohort
> 2 (62 percent of all centers in the APR).

Similar to Figure 34, Figure 36 provides the percentage of regular
attendees scoring at each federal proficiency level in mathematics based
on data obtained from both the 2003--04 and 2004--05 APRs.

> Figure 36. Percentage of Regular Attendees Attaining Federal
> Proficiency Levels in Mathematics by APR

![](media/image37.wmf){width="5.114583333333333in" height="3.0in"}

> *Note.* Based on 2,202 centers providing data for 2003--04 (60 percent
> of all centers in the APR) and 5,008 centers providing data for
> 2004--05 (64 percent of all centers in the APR).

Figure 37 displays the percentage of regular attendees scoring at each
federal proficiency level in mathematics on the 2004--05 state
assessment split by APR cohort, based on whether the center first
reported as part of the 2003--04 or 2004--05 APR.

> Figure 37. Percentage of Regular Attendees Attaining Federal
> Proficiency Levels During the 2004--05 School Year in Mathematics by
> 2005 APR Cohort

![](media/image38.wmf){width="5.114583333333333in" height="3.0in"}

> *Note.* Based on 2,309 centers providing data for Cohort 1 (66 percent
> of all centers in Cohort 1) and
>
> 2,699 centers providing data for Cohort 2 (62 percent of all centers
> in Cohort 2).

Some key points related to proficiency levels attained by regular
attendees are as follows:

-   Compared to last year, a slightly higher percentage of this year's
    regular attendees scored at the proficient level on state
    assessments in reading and mathematics.

-   Centers that were reporting for the first time this year had a
    higher percentage of regular attendees fall into the proficient
    category than those that were reporting for the second time.

-   There were minor differences (not depicted) in the percentage of
    students in each proficiency level based on locale[^19] with
    suburban programs slightly more likely to have students in the
    proficient category and less likely to have students in the
    "advanced" category than urban and rural programs.

**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
38 states completed a survey (available at
www2.learningpt.org/ppics/survey.asp) developed for this initiative in
which they rated the degree of improvement in academic behaviors
exhibited by regular program participants across the 2004--05 school
year. Figure 38 displays the results of the survey as to whether a
particular student's behavior has improved, stayed the same, or declined
in the given area during the school year. Figure 38 uses the following
data labels:

-   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

In the survey, gradations of change were given as slight, moderate, and
significant. As noted previously, teachers taking the survey were given
the option to identify if a given student did not need to improve on a
given category of behavior. Students who did not need to improve in a
given area were not included in the calculations used to derive the
percentages outlined in Figure 38.

> Figure 38. Percentage of Students with Teacher-Reported Change in
> Various Academic Behaviors

![](media/image39.wmf){width="5.125in" height="2.9895833333333335in"}

> *Note.* Based on 4,389 centers providing data (56 percent of all
> centers in the APR).

Some key points related to behavioral change are as follows:

-   More than 60 percent of students who needed improvement in any one
    area showed improvement.

-   Academic performance was the area in which the most regular
    attendees witnessed growth, according to surveys. Participating in
    class, completing homework to the teacher's satisfaction, and
    turning in homework on time also were areas of improvement for a
    large percentage of students.

-   Very few students declined in any category of behavior according to
    teacher survey responses. Those who did not improve mostly witnessed
    no change.

-   Attending class regularly was the area in which the fewest students
    needed improvement (this information is not depicted in the chart).
    Nearly 29 percent of students were described by their teachers as
    not needing improvement in this area. Behaving in class and getting
    along well with other students were areas in which 20 percent or
    more of students did not need improvement.

-   The area in which the most students needed improvement was academic
    performance, with only 11 percent of students described as not
    needing improvement in this area.

-   Most other categories of behavior represented on the survey had
    about 15 percent of students listed as not needing improvement.

**Conclusions and Next Steps**

Many of the characteristics first detailed in the June 2005 report
continue to exemplify the 9,930 21st Century Community Learning Centers
providing 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 each year. These
programs continue to serve some of the more economically needy families
in the country, with 56 percent of student participants served during
the 2004--05 reporting period eligible for the free or reduced-price
lunch program. Likewise, information collected as part of the 2004--05
reporting process indicates that a significant number of youth
participating in state-administered 21st CCLC programs are academically
at risk. In the 31 states submitting state assessment results for the
2004--05 reporting period, just under half of the regular attendees
served by centers during this period scored below proficient on the
mathematics (46 percent) and reading and language arts (42 percent)
portions of their state's assessment. However, the percentage of
students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (62 percent in
2003--04), the percentage of students who scored below proficiency on
state assessments in reading/language arts (45 percent in 2003--04), and
the percentage of students who scored below proficiency on state
assessments in mathematics\
(49 percent in 2003--04) declined slightly from levels associated with
students served during the 2003--04 school year.

By linking data housed in PPICS with the Common Core of Data (CCD) for
the first time, it is also possible to confirm that students who
participated in 21st CCLC programming during the 2004--05 reporting
period largely reflect the demographic makeup of the student population
at the public schools they attend in terms of ethnicity and free or
reduced-price lunch eligibility.

Similar to information obtained as part of the 2003--04 APR, meeting the
academic needs of these students continues to be reflected in the
programming provided by centers. During the 2004--05 school year, 90
percent of centers provided tutoring and homework help, 84 percent of
centers offered academic enrichment learning programs, and 74 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, 92 percent of centers
provided reading and literacy education programs and 90 percent offered
activities that focused upon the development of mathematics skills and
competencies. Generally, however, the percentage of centers providing
activities predicated on providing academic assistance to participating
students declined slightly from levels witnessed during the 2003--04
reporting period.

It also is worthwhile to note that the number of grantees submitting APR
data for activities undertaken during the 2004--05 reporting period
(2,869) was more than double the number of grantees completing the APR
reporting process for the 2003--04 school year (1,267). However, there
is evidence to suggest that the number of 21st CCLC grantees has peaked
nationwide. There were 19 subgrant competitions held during the first
eight months of 2005, less than one third as many as were run in 2004.
Of these 19 competitions, 16 were administered in states that also held
competitions during calendar year 2004. For competitions held in 2005,
the median acceptance rate among these 16 states decreased slightly,
from 45 percent to 41 percent. The median dollar-based funding rate also
decreased slightly, from 45 percent to 38 percent while the median of
the average amount of award decreased from \$223,259 in 2004 to
\$172,409 in 2005, a 23 percent decrease. Though many of these changes
are not great, they could potentially suggest that the capacity of
states to meet the demand for funding of new grantees has decreased
slightly. There are a number of other potential reasons for these
changes as well. For example, these results also could be an indication
that the number of well-written and articulated proposals has slackened
somewhat, as compared to applications submitted in previous
competitions. In any event, these trends are interesting and warrant
further monitoring in future years.

With two years of APR data now in hand, 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 3, grantees reported regular attendees witnessing improvements in
grades, state assessment results, and academic behaviors; however,
grantees as a whole exceeded the desired performance threshold only on
one of the four indicators with a defined performance target. The one
performance threshold related to student outcomes that was met was the
target related to the proportion of regular attendees demonstrating
improved homework completion and class participation*.* On the remaining
three indicators related to student outcomes, the domain of 21st CCLC
programs submitting APR data as part of the 2004--05 reporting process
missed the defined performance targets by only 4 to 6 percentage points.

Efforts continue to modify and improve the data collected in PPICS for
future waves of data collection, including modifications that are
designed to enhance the validity of measures being used to assess
student achievement and behavioral improvement outcomes. These efforts
also should continue to include discussions relating to 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 still seems 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.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc129767183 .anchor}**References**

Eccles, J., & Gootman, J. A. (2002). Features of positive developmental
settings. In J. Eccles & J. A. Gootman (Eds.), *Community programs to
promote youth development* (pp. 86--117). Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.

Naftzger, N., Margolin, J., & Kaufman, S. (2005). *21st Century
Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) analytic support for evaluation
and program monitoring: An overview of the 21st CCLC program: 2003--04*.
Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). *Urban/rural
classification systems*. Retrieved July 3, 2006, from
http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/ruraled/Definitions.asp#Locale

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2003). *21st Century
Community Learning Centers non-regulatory guidance*. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved July 3, 2006, from
http://www.ed.gov/programs/21stcclc/guidance2003.pdf

Rosenthal, R., & Vandell, D. L. (1996). Quality of school-aged child
care programs: Regulatable features, observed experiences, child
perspectives, and parent perspectives. *Child* *Development, 67*,
2434-2445.

# Appendix A

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc129767185 .anchor}State Tables

  -------------- ------------- ------------ --------- ------------ ------------------- ------------------ -----------
  **A-1:                                                                                                  
  Competition                                                                                             
  Overview (2005                                                                                          
  Competitions                                                                                            
  Through August                                                                                          
  31)**                                                                                                   

  State          Competition   Applicants   Awards    \% of        \$ Requested        \$ Awarded         \% of \$
                 Records                              Applicants                                          Requested
                                                      Funded                                              Awarded

  AK             \-            \-           \-        \-           \-                  \-                 \-

  AL             \-            \-           \-        \-           \-                  \-                 \-

  AR             \-            \-           \-        \-           \-                  \-                 \-

  AZ             \-            \-           \-        \-           \-                  \-                 \-

  BI             \-            \-           \-        \-           \-                  \-                 \-

  CA             \-            \-           \-        \-           \-                  \-                 \-

  CO             1             25           17        68%          \$5,902,748         \$3,393,371        57%

  CT             \-            \-           \-        \-           \-                  \-                 \-

  DC             \-            \-           \-        \-           \-                  \-                 \-

  DE             \-            \-           \-        \-           \-                  \-                 \-

  FL             \-            \-           \-        \-           \-                  \-                 \-

  GA             \-            \-           \-        \-           \-                  \-                 \-

  HI             \-            \-           \-        \-           \-                  \-                 \-

  IA             \-            \-           \-        \-           \-                  \-                 \-

  ID             1             20           13        65%          \$2,675,710         \$1,610,268        60%

  IL             \-            \-           \-        \-           \-                  \-                 \-

  IN             1             47           18        38%          \$17,745,482        \$5,015,595        28%

  KS             \-            \-           \-        \-           \-                  \-                 \-

  KY             \-            \-           \-        \-           \-                  \-                 \-

  LA             \-            \-           \-        \-           \-                  \-                 \-

  MA             \-            \-           \-        \-           \-                  \-                 \-

  MD             \-            \-           \-        \-           \-                  \-                 \-

  ME             \-            \-           \-        \-           \-                  \-                 \-

  MI             \-            \-           \-        \-           \-                  \-                 \-

  MN             \-            \-           \-        \-           \-                  \-                 \-

  MO             \-            \-           \-        \-           \-                  \-                 \-

  MS             \-            \-           \-        \-           \-                  \-                 \-

  MT             \-            \-           \-        \-           \-                  \-                 \-

  NC             1             52           29        56%          \$16,467,698        \$7,491,015        45%

  ND             \-            \-           \-        \-           \-                  \-                 \-

  NE             1             11           9         82%          \$1,701,882         \$1,292,070        76%

  NH             \-            \-           \-        \-           \-                  \-                 \-

  NJ             1             \-           \-        \-           \-                  \-                 \-

  NM             \-            \-           \-        \-           \-                  \-                 \-

  NV             1             12           10        83%          \$1,447,620         \$1,058,558        73%

  **A-1:                                                                                                  
  Competition                                                                                             
  Overview (2005                                                                                          
  Competitions                                                                                            
  Through August                                                                                          
  31)**                                                                                                   

  State          Competition   Applicants   Awards    \% of        \$ Requested        \$ Awarded         \% of \$
                 Records                              Applicants                                          Requested
                                                      Funded                                              Awarded

  NY             1             287          88        31%          \$67,798,500        \$21,022,871       31%

  OH             1             142          3         2%           \$35,500,000        \$900,000          3%

  OK             1             67           7         10%          \$15,905,220        \$1,493,087        9%

  OR             1             36           6         17%          \$9,468,197         \$1,430,744        15%

  PA             \-            \-           \-        \-           \-                  \-                 \-

  PR             1             \-           \-        \-           \-                  \-                 \-

  RI             \-            \-           \-        \-           \-                  \-                 \-

  SC             1             75           12        16%          \$13,689,017        \$2,250,061        16%

  SD             \-            \-           \-        \-           \-                  \-                 \-

  TN             \-            \-           \-        \-           \-                  \-                 \-

  TX             \-            \-           \-        \-           \-                  \-                 \-

  UT             1             11           3         27%          \$1,895,530         \$472,000          25%

  VA             1             33           17        52%          \$5,842,296         \$2,730,458        47%

  VT             1             7            5         71%          \$1,013,024         \$921,022          91%

  WA             \-            \-           \-        \-           \-                  \-                 \-

  WI             1             53           6         11%          \$9,044,237         \$600,000          7%

  WV             1             21           1         5%           \$6,729,126         \$60,000           1%

  WY             1             24           19        79%          \$2,362,380         \$2,030,509        86%

  **Total**      **19**        **923**      **263**   **28%**      **\$215,188,667**   **\$53,771,629**   **25%**
  -------------- ------------- ------------ --------- ------------ ------------------- ------------------ -----------

  ------------- ----------- ----------- ------------- ------------ --------------- ------------- ----------
  **A-2:                                                                                         
  Grantee                                                                                        
  Profile Basic                                                                                  
  Information                                                                                    
  (for grants                                                                                    
  awarded prior                                                                                  
  to July                                                                                        
  2005)**                                                                                        

  State         Grantees    Centers     Feeder        Partners     Anticipated     Anticipated   Average
                                        Schools                    Students        Adults        Hours per
                                                                                                 Week

  AK            15          56          77            153          5,561           3,706         12.4

  AL            95          142         259           737          14,562          9,419         13.5

  AR            68          68          68            253          9,784           5,030         20.1

  AZ            37          89          103           594          18,216          5,787         12.7

  BI            32          52          97            247          8,816           3,458         20.1

  CA            254         1,336       2,181         2,213        207,319         49,857        18.0

  CO            36          73          88            223          13,876          5,602         16.6

  CT            32          80          422           265          24,200          4,273         16.7

  DC            17          34          68            71           3,284           974           15.3

  DE            21          47          99            64           3,979           1,372         21.9

  FL            77          304         628           894          48,401          16,020        17.9

  GA            48          209         374           848          19,465          11,501        17.1

  HI            9           54          75            128          10,445          1,709         13.5

  IA            16          39          78            211          3,330           2,000         17.6

  ID            33          66          104           242          3,750           761           19.8

  IL            96          311         484           648          37,970          16,185        14.7

  IN            27          95          227           239          10,372          4,320         15.0

  KS            28          72          90            354          9,695           3,638         12.0

  KY            91          142         206           380          23,229          8,254         18.6

  LA            34          88          157           320          10,219          3,506         12.5

  MA            39          185         203           177          11,365          1,517         13.3

  MD            35          128         299           306          10,689          5,187         11.2

  ME            37          117         142           95           9,030           1,836         12.1

  MI            52          191         235           581          19,887          5,294         15.2

  MN            38          117         221           372          18,584          4,423         16.4

  MO            55          133         244           351          16,008          12,126        19.2

  MS            51          161         277           231          15,602          4,937         10.6

  MT            38          79          141           444          12,172          1,086         12.9

  NC            63          215         500           528          17,622          8,375         14.8

  ND            12          66          101           274          7,038           2,675         17.9

  NE            12          46          69            133          3,282           1,710         17.1

  NH            17          44          60            172          7,798           1,906         14.2

  NJ            47          139         301           311          15,145          7,305         18.8

  NM            29          90          112           201          11,062          3,841         12.1

  NV            38          45          119           292          5,542           2,600         20.6

  NY            232         677         1,252         1,276        119,421         45,521        16.1

  OH            101         254         510           774          29,896          11,464        14.1

  OK            48          79          100           257          10,174          4,494         15.0

  OR            24          73          92            167          7,750           3,692         15.7

  PA            90          316         501           837          29,870          13,612        15.2

  **A-2:                                                                                         
  Grantee                                                                                        
  Profile Basic                                                                                  
  Information                                                                                    
  (for grants                                                                                    
  awarded prior                                                                                  
  to July                                                                                        
  2005)**                                                                                        

  State         Grantees    Centers     Feeder        Partners     Anticipated     Anticipated   Average
                                        Schools                    Students        Adults        Hours per
                                                                                                 Week

  PR            91          1,235       1,322         711          137,472         19,482        9.2

  RI            21          39          67            199          6,714           2,275         21.7

  SC            78          173         196           541          13,431          5,066         13.1

  SD            46          98          245           255          14,079          4,386         15.7

  TN            79          240         376           733          23,502          10,740        13.2

  TX            121         493         658           1,983        121,668         44,808        14.9

  UT            16          52          64            201          10,709          5,487         25.2

  VA            91          153         207           546          17,795          8,725         12.9

  VT            30          85          116           225          9,413           977           11.6

  WA            27          145         174           473          14,532          11,123        11.7

  WI            55          113         291           555          21,844          7,908         15.5

  WV            29          140         255           362          14,150          6,718         10.5

  WY            61          156         541           344          11,786          2,504         20.3

  **Total**     **2,869**   **9,634**   **15,876**    **23,991**   **1,281,505**   **431,172**   **-**
  ------------- ----------- ----------- ------------- ------------ --------------- ------------- ----------

![](media/image40.png){width="7.042361111111111in"
height="5.978472222222222in"}![](media/image41.png){width="7.084027777777778in"
height="4.280555555555556in"}

+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| **   |                    |                    |                    |
| A-4: |                    |                    |                    |
| GPRA |                    |                    |                    |
| Ind  |                    |                    |                    |
| icat |                    |                    |                    |
| or - |                    |                    |                    |
| Serv |                    |                    |                    |
| ices |                    |                    |                    |
| O    |                    |                    |                    |
| ffer |                    |                    |                    |
| ed** |                    |                    |                    |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| *The |                    |                    |                    |
| pe   |                    |                    |                    |
| rcen |                    |                    |                    |
| tage |                    |                    |                    |
| of   |                    |                    |                    |
| 21st |                    |                    |                    |
| Cen  |                    |                    |                    |
| tury |                    |                    |                    |
| C    |                    |                    |                    |
| ommu |                    |                    |                    |
| nity |                    |                    |                    |
| Lear |                    |                    |                    |
| ning |                    |                    |                    |
| Cen  |                    |                    |                    |
| ters |                    |                    |                    |
| r    |                    |                    |                    |
| epor |                    |                    |                    |
| ting |                    |                    |                    |
| emph |                    |                    |                    |
| asis |                    |                    |                    |
| in   |                    |                    |                    |
| at   |                    |                    |                    |
| l    |                    |                    |                    |
| east |                    |                    |                    |
| one  |                    |                    |                    |
| core |                    |                    |                    |
| acad |                    |                    |                    |
| emic |                    |                    |                    |
| area |                    |                    |                    |
| and  |                    |                    |                    |
| offe |                    |                    |                    |
| ring |                    |                    |                    |
| en   |                    |                    |                    |
| rich |                    |                    |                    |
| ment |                    |                    |                    |
| and  |                    |                    |                    |
| sup  |                    |                    |                    |
| port |                    |                    |                    |
| ac   |                    |                    |                    |
| tivi |                    |                    |                    |
| ties |                    |                    |                    |
| in   |                    |                    |                    |
| te   |                    |                    |                    |
| chno |                    |                    |                    |
| logy |                    |                    |                    |
| and  |                    |                    |                    |
| o    |                    |                    |                    |
| ther |                    |                    |                    |
| a    |                    |                    |                    |
| reas |                    |                    |                    |
| (Ta  |                    |                    |                    |
| rget |                    |                    |                    |
| =    |                    |                    |                    |
| 85   |                    |                    |                    |
| %).* |                    |                    |                    |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| S    | Emphasis in core   | Enrichment and     | Enrichment and     |
| tate |                    | support            | support            |
|      | academic area(s)   |                    |                    |
|      |                    | in technology      | in other areas     |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| AK   | 96%                | 54%                | 81%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| AL   | 100%               | 93%                | 97%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| AR   | 100%               | 83%                | 91%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| AZ   | 100%               | 64%                | 96%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| BI   | 100%               | 84%                | 96%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| CA   | 98%                | 61%                | 97%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| CO   | 100%               | 64%                | 100%               |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| CT   | 93%                | 11%                | 96%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| DC   | 97%                | 91%                | 97%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| DE   | 100%               | 84%                | 93%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| FL   | 100%               | 80%                | 98%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| GA   | 98%                | 62%                | 95%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| HI   | 100%               | 50%                | 67%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| IA   | 100%               | 72%                | 100%               |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| ID   | 98%                | 27%                | 76%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| IL   | 96%                | 61%                | 96%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| IN   | 98%                | 59%                | 91%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| KS   | 100%               | 72%                | 93%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| KY   | 100%               | 87%                | 100%               |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| LA   | 99%                | 78%                | 100%               |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| MA   | 100%               | 78%                | 98%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| MD   | 89%                | 49%                | 99%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| ME   | 100%               | 64%                | 93%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| MI   | 98%                | 66%                | 98%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| MN   | 95%                | 56%                | 91%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| MO   | 100%               | 75%                | 97%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| MS   | 100%               | 61%                | 87%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| MT   | 92%                | 43%                | 90%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| NC   | 99%                | 85%                | 98%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| ND   | 100%               | 84%                | 91%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| NE   | 98%                | 82%                | 100%               |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| NH   | 100%               | 84%                | 100%               |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| NJ   | 99%                | 84%                | 98%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| NM   | 100%               | 82%                | 100%               |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| NV   | 93%                | 38%                | 98%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| **   |                    |                    |                    |
| A-4: |                    |                    |                    |
| GPRA |                    |                    |                    |
| Ind  |                    |                    |                    |
| icat |                    |                    |                    |
| or - |                    |                    |                    |
| Serv |                    |                    |                    |
| ices |                    |                    |                    |
| O    |                    |                    |                    |
| ffer |                    |                    |                    |
| ed** |                    |                    |                    |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| *The |                    |                    |                    |
| pe   |                    |                    |                    |
| rcen |                    |                    |                    |
| tage |                    |                    |                    |
| of   |                    |                    |                    |
| 21st |                    |                    |                    |
| Cen  |                    |                    |                    |
| tury |                    |                    |                    |
| C    |                    |                    |                    |
| ommu |                    |                    |                    |
| nity |                    |                    |                    |
| Lear |                    |                    |                    |
| ning |                    |                    |                    |
| Cen  |                    |                    |                    |
| ters |                    |                    |                    |
| r    |                    |                    |                    |
| epor |                    |                    |                    |
| ting |                    |                    |                    |
| emph |                    |                    |                    |
| asis |                    |                    |                    |
| in   |                    |                    |                    |
| at   |                    |                    |                    |
| l    |                    |                    |                    |
| east |                    |                    |                    |
| one  |                    |                    |                    |
| core |                    |                    |                    |
| acad |                    |                    |                    |
| emic |                    |                    |                    |
| area |                    |                    |                    |
| and  |                    |                    |                    |
| offe |                    |                    |                    |
| ring |                    |                    |                    |
| en   |                    |                    |                    |
| rich |                    |                    |                    |
| ment |                    |                    |                    |
| and  |                    |                    |                    |
| sup  |                    |                    |                    |
| port |                    |                    |                    |
| ac   |                    |                    |                    |
| tivi |                    |                    |                    |
| ties |                    |                    |                    |
| in   |                    |                    |                    |
| te   |                    |                    |                    |
| chno |                    |                    |                    |
| logy |                    |                    |                    |
| and  |                    |                    |                    |
| o    |                    |                    |                    |
| ther |                    |                    |                    |
| a    |                    |                    |                    |
| reas |                    |                    |                    |
| (Ta  |                    |                    |                    |
| rget |                    |                    |                    |
| =    |                    |                    |                    |
| 85   |                    |                    |                    |
| %).* |                    |                    |                    |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| S    | Emphasis in core   | Enrichment and     | Enrichment and     |
| tate |                    | support            | support            |
|      | academic area(s)   |                    |                    |
|      |                    | in technology      | in other areas     |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| NY   | 97%                | 64%                | 96%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| OH   | 100%               | 74%                | 92%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| OK   | 99%                | 91%                | 99%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| OR   | 98%                | 44%                | 100%               |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| PA   | 99%                | 86%                | 100%               |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| PR   | 60%                | 63%                | 93%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| RI   | 97%                | 51%                | 90%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| SC   | 100%               | 77%                | 95%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| SD   | 100%               | 67%                | 86%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| TN   | 100%               | 74%                | 97%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| TX   | 100%               | 66%                | 97%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| UT   | 100%               | 78%                | 100%               |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| VA   | 98%                | 78%                | 94%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| VT   | 94%                | 70%                | 95%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| WA   | 99%                | 66%                | 93%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| WI   | 98%                | 42%                | 97%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| WV   | 100%               | 76%                | 93%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| WY   | 97%                | 42%                | 75%                |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+
| *    | **95%**            | **67%**            | **95%**            |
| *All |                    |                    |                    |
| Stat |                    |                    |                    |
| es** |                    |                    |                    |
+------+--------------------+--------------------+--------------------+

![](media/image42.png){width="6.905555555555556in"
height="5.875694444444444in"}

![](media/image43.png){width="6.915972222222222in"
height="6.063194444444444in"}

![](media/image44.png){width="6.186805555555556in"
height="3.2493055555555554in"}

# Appendix B

# Community Type (Locale)

The type of community surrounding a center, or its locale, may be an
important factor in its service delivery. The locale of a center
influences things---such as the role transportation plays as a barrier
to student participation and the extent to which a site can partner with
other entities (e.g., museums, colleges and universities) to offer
programming. The locale of each center in PPICS was determined through a
series of merges with the Common Core of Data (CCD) based on center ZIP
code; the name of the city and state the center was located in; and/or
if available in PPICS, the unique identifier assigned by NCES for each
school found in the CCD. Each center with a "match" in the CCD was
identified as having an urban, suburban, or rural locale based on the
eight codes NCES employs to classify schools based on the population of
the community in which the school is located, as derived from census
data[^20]. This approach resulted in 8,167 or\
85 percent of all centers[^21] receiving a locale designation. Centers
associated with feeder schools from more than one locale type were
assigned the locale code associated with the plurality of the feeder
schools served by the center in question. Table B1 indicates the NCES
approach to aggregating locale codes associated with schools into the
three categories of urban, suburban, and rural, which was employed as
part of these analyses.

Table B1. Locale Categories and Codes

+-------------------+------------------+------------------------------+
| **Category        | **NCES Category  | **Unaggregated**             |
| Descriptor Used   | Designation**    |                              |
| in Report**       |                  | **NCES Locale Code**         |
+-------------------+------------------+------------------------------+
| Urban             | Central City     | 1 = Large city               |
|                   |                  |                              |
|                   |                  | 2 = Mid-size city            |
+-------------------+------------------+------------------------------+
| Suburban          | Urban fringe,    | 3 = Urban fringe of large    |
|                   | large town       | city                         |
|                   |                  |                              |
|                   |                  | 4 = Urban fringe of mid-size |
|                   |                  | city                         |
|                   |                  |                              |
|                   |                  | 5 = Large town               |
+-------------------+------------------+------------------------------+
| Rural             | Rural or small   | 6 = Small town               |
|                   | town             |                              |
|                   |                  | 7 = Rural - outside          |
|                   |                  | Core-Based Statistical Area  |
|                   |                  | (CBSA)                       |
|                   |                  |                              |
|                   |                  | 8 = Rural - inside CBSA      |
+-------------------+------------------+------------------------------+

> *Source:* National Center for Education Statistics (2003)

### The purpose of this appendix is to present several analyses that disaggregate major characteristics of the 21st CCLC program by grantee and center locale. Information presented here was obtained from both the Grantee Profile and APR modules of PPICS.

### Locale of Grantees and Centers

The community type of the center may affect resource allocation as well
as program participation. Figure C1 shows the percentage of centers
associated with a given community type. The plurality of centers (43
percent) are located in urban areas while a third of centers (33
percent) can be found in rural communities.

Figure C1. Locales of 21st CCLC Centers

![](media/image45.wmf)

> *Note.* Based on 8,167 centers providing data (85 percent of all
> centers in the Grantee Profile).

It also is possible to determine the proportion of grantees that operate
centers in each locale type. Figure C2 shows the percentage of grantee
organizations that operate centers in each type of locale. "Multiple"
represents grantees with centers in more than one locale type.

Figure C2. Grantees by Locale

![](media/image46.wmf)

> *Note.* Based on 2,726 grantees providing data (95 percent of all
> grantees in the Grantee Profile).

Some key points about the locale of grantees are as follows:

-   Grantees with centers in rural and grantees with centers in urban
    areas are about twice as prevalent as those with centers in suburban
    areas.

-   The average number of centers per grantee varies with locale type.
    On average, grantees with centers located in multiple locales have
    the highest number of centers per grantee. These grantees have an
    average of 5.8 centers funded by their grant. Grantees with only
    urban centers have an average of 3.1 centers, while grantees with
    only suburban centers and only rural centers have an average of 2.6
    and 2.5 centers, respectively, funded by their grant.

### First-Year Funding Amount per Center by Grantee Locale Type

Locale also may have an influence on the size of the 21st CCLC grant
received by a grantee, given differences by locale in the number of
students who could potentially be served by the centers funded by the
grant. In order to explore the extent to which funding varies by locale,
the ratio of first-year funding to the number of centers associated with
the grant was calculated to serve as a measure of the amount of funding
available to each center associated with a given 21st CCLC grant. For
each type of grantee locale, Figure C3 shows the median amount of
funding per center received by a grantee in its first year of 21st CCLC
funding.

Figure C3. Median Amount of First Year Funding per Center by Grantee
Locale

![](media/image47.wmf)

> *Note.* Based on 2,726 grantees providing data (95 percent of all
> grantees in the Grantee Profile)

The median per-center funding rate was highest for both suburban and
urban centers. The median funding rates of centers associated with
grantees in rural and multiple locales were about 15 percent lower than
those of suburban and urban centers.

### Other Sources of Funding by Locale

One challenge of sustaining a 21st CCLC program 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. Overall, 75 percent of grantees reported using some other source
of funding in conjunction with their 21st CCLC grant to provide services
and programming to students. This percentage was largely equivalent
across locale: 72 percent for urban grantees, 74 percent for suburban,
and 77 percent for rural grantees.

Figure C4 depicts the percentage of grantees by locale 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 Federal Sources" includes Upward
Bound, GEAR UP, Safe Schools/Healthy Students, the Carol M. White
Physical Education Program, mentoring grants, and other federal sources.
"Other Title I Funding" includes Even Start, the School Dropout
Prevention Program, Early Reading First, Migrant Education Program, and
all Title I funding with the exception of supplemental educational
services.

Figure C4. Proportion of Centers with Other Type of Funding by Locale

> ![](media/image48.wmf)
>
> *Note.* Based on 2,453 grantees providing data (85.7 percent of all
> grantees in the Grantee Profile).

Key points related to other funding types by locale are as follows:

-   Title I programs are a common funding source across locales. These
    programs include funding sources such as Even Start, School Dropout
    Prevention Program, Early Reading First, and Migrant Education.

-   Funding provided by the local school district also is common across
    all locale types.

-   Grantees with centers located exclusively in urban areas are
    slightly more likely to utilize funding from foundations,
    supplemental educational services, and state sources than their
    rural and suburban counterparts.

-   Generally, grantees with centers located in suburban areas are the
    least likely to utilize nondistrict resources in conjunction with
    21st CCLC funding to support programming.

**Locale and Hours of Center Operation**

Locale also may influence the domain of hours that a given center opts
to operate. Figure C5 reports the time periods that centers anticipate
being open, based on their classification as urban, suburban, or
rural.[^22] This information is taken from the Grantee Profile.

> Figure C5. Percent of Centers Offering Programming\
> at Various Times by Locale

![](media/image49.wmf){width="5.125in" height="3.5729166666666665in"}

> *Note.* Based on 3,320 centers in urban areas providing data (93
> percent of all urban centers in the Grantee Profile), 1,851 centers in
> suburban areas providing data (94 percent of all suburban centers in
> the Grantee Profile), and 2,600 centers in rural areas providing data
> (92 percent of all rural centers in the Grantee Profile).

Some key points related to the percentage of centers offering
programming at various times by locale are as follows:

-   Almost all centers in all areas offer programming after school.

-   A slightly higher percentage of urban programs offer programming
    before school.

-   A higher percentage of urban programs offer programming during the
    summer.

-   A slightly higher percentage of rural programs offer programming on
    weekends.

### Weekly Hours of Operation by Center Locale

Center locale also may affect the amount of time that a program can
operate as well. Figure C6 shows the percentage of centers by locale
that offered programming for the given number of hours per week. As
demonstrated in Figure C6, urban centers tend to operate more hours per
week than suburban centers and suburban centers tend to operate more
than rural centers.

Figure C6. Proportion of Centers With Different Weekly Hours of
Operation\
(School Year) by Locale

![](media/image50.wmf){width="5.125in" height="2.8645833333333335in"}

> *Note.* Based on 2,852 centers reporting in urban areas (98 percent of
> all urban centers in the APR), 1,510 centers reporting in suburban
> areas (99 percent of all suburban centers in the APR), and 2,276
> centers reporting in rural areas (98 percent of all rural centers in
> the APR).

### Staffing in Different Locales

This section explores the relationship between locale and staffing. The
next two figures display the proportion of paid staff of different types
for each locale. Figure C7 shows this information for the school year,
and Figure C8 describes summer staffing.

> Figure C7. Proportion of School-Year Paid Staff of Different Types, by
> Center Locale

![](media/image51.wmf){width="5.125in" height="3.0in"}

> *Note.* Based on 2,866 urban centers providing data (98 percent of all
> urban centers in the APR), 1,512 suburban centers providing data (99
> percent of all suburban centers in the APR), and 2,286 rural centers
> providing data (99 percent of all rural centers in the APR).
>
> Figure C8. Proportion of Summer Paid Staff of Different Types,\
> by Center Locale

![](media/image52.wmf){width="5.135416666666667in"
height="3.0104166666666665in"}

> *Note.* Based on 1,176 urban centers providing data (40 percent of all
> urban centers in the APR), 643 suburban centers providing data (42
> percent of all suburban centers in the APR), and 1,213 rural centers
> providing data (52 percent of all rural centers in the APR).

Most paid staffing patterns appear relatively similar across programs in
different locales, with two exceptions:

-   Compared to suburban and rural programs, urban programs tend to have
    a smaller percentage of their paid staff made up of school-day
    teachers.

-   Compared to suburban and rural programs, urban programs tend to have
    a greater proportion of their paid staff made up of youth
    development workers (although the proportion is relatively low in
    all locales).

The next two figures display the proportion of volunteer staff of
different types for each locale. Figure C9 displays the school year
staffing patterns, and Figure C10 shows this information for the summer.

> Figure C9. Proportion of School-Year Volunteer Staff of
>
> Different Types, by Center Locale

![](media/image53.wmf){width="5.135416666666667in"
height="3.0104166666666665in"}

> *Note.* Based on 2,866 urban centers providing data (98 percent of all
> urban centers in the APR), 1,512 suburban centers providing data (99
> percent of all suburban centers in the APR), and 2,286 rural centers
> providing data (99 percent of all rural centers in the APR).
>
> Figurer C10. Proportion of Summer Volunteer Staff of Different Types,
> by Center Locale

![](media/image54.wmf){width="5.135416666666667in"
height="3.0104166666666665in"}

> *Note,* Based on 1,176 urban centers providing data (40 percent of all
> urban centers in the APR), 643 suburban centers providing data (42
> percent of all suburban centers in the APR), and 1,213 rural centers
> providing data (52 percent of all rural centers in the APR).

Overall, most staffing patterns appear relatively similar across
programs in different locales. There were a few differences, including
the following:

-   During the school year, urban and suburban centers tend to have
    about twice as many college volunteers as rural centers. During the
    summer, the proportion of college volunteers drops in all locales,
    especially in urban centers.

-   During the school year, rural programs tend to have more community
    workers than do suburban programs.

-   During the summer, rural programs have a higher proportion of
    parents serving as volunteer staff than do urban and suburban
    programs.

-   During the summer, urban programs have a higher proportion of high
    school students serving as volunteers than do suburban and rural
    programs.

### 

### Prevalence of Programming in Different Locales

Given potential differences in the level of social infrastructure and
opportunities associated with different levels of urbanization, it is
important to understand the relation of locale and the prevalence of
different types of center activities. To begin with, there are
relatively minor differences among locales in the prevalence of
programming in different categories, as displayed in Figure C11.

Figure C11. Prevalence of Programming Categories in Different Locales

![](media/image55.wmf){width="5.916666666666667in" height="2.96875in"}

> *Note.* Based on 6,657 centers (85 percent of all centers in the APR).
> This analysis excludes centers from Puerto Rico and the Virgin
> Islands, as well as those centers with missing address information.

The following are some key points about the prevalence of programming by
category in different locales:

-   Programs for LEP students are more prevalent in urban and suburban
    areas than in rural locales, which may reflect corresponding
    differences in prevalence of LEP students.

-   A similar pattern is shown for programming that promotes youth
    leadership (Lead).

-   Expanded library service hours (Library) and remediation programs
    (Remed) are more prevalent in rural than in urban areas.

It also is useful to examine whether centers in different locales
emphasize different subjects in their programming. Figure C12 describes
the prevalence of programming in different subjects, disaggregated by
center locale.

Figure C12. Prevalence of Programming Subjects in Different Locales

![](media/image56.wmf){width="5.125in" height="3.1458333333333335in"}

> *Note.* Based on 6,598 centers (84 percent of all centers in the APR).
> This analysis excludes centers from Puerto Rico, as well as those
> centers with missing address information.

Centers in different locales are mostly equivalent in the prevalence of
the academic subjects of reading, math, and science. However, there
appears to be a slightly greater prevalence of arts programming in urban
settings and a slightly greater prevalence of technology programming in
rural settings.

### 

### Attendance Comparisons by Locale

In light of differences that exist between the size and concentration of
urban, suburban, and rural student populations, one may expect that the
level of program attendance would vary by center locale. In Figure C13,
the median number of total and regular attendees in 2005 by center
locale is outlined.

Figure C13. Median Center Attendance by Locale

![](media/image57.wmf){width="5.125in" height="3.4479166666666665in"}

> *Note.* Based on 6,716 centers reporting data for the 2004--05 school
> year (86 percent of all centers in the APR).

Key points related to median attendance by locale are as follows:

-   Centers located in urban setting had the highest median attendance,
    followed by suburban centers, with rural centers demonstrating the
    lowest median total attendance during the 2004--05 reporting period.

-   Median regular attendance followed a similar pattern with the median
    number of regular attendees decreasing as communities became less
    urban. It is interesting to note, however, that median regular
    attendees, as a proportion of median total attendees, also declined
    as program settings became more rural in nature. For urban centers,
    the median number of regular attendees as a proportion of median
    total attendees was 59 percent (e.g., 85/145); for suburban centers,
    this proportion was 58 percent. For rural centers, the median number
    of regular attendees as a proportion of median total attendees
    declined to 48 percent.

In addition, it also is possible to calculate the median per-student
funding by locale based on total center attendance and the annual amount
of 21st CCLC funds that grantees were allocated for the year primarily
overlapping the 2004--05 reporting period. Figure C14 indicates the
median per-student funding by grantee locale.

Figure C14. Per-Student Funding by Locale

![](media/image58.wmf)

> *Note.* Based on 2,026 grantees where all centers reported attendance
> data for the 2004--05 school year and where locale information was
> available (71 percent of total grantees in the APR).

The median per-student funding associated with providing 21st CCLC
programming during the 2004--05 reporting period is fairly equivalent
across grantees from each locale, with suburban programs witnessing the
highest per-student level of funding. The median per-student funding
across all grantees was \$780.

### Grade Levels Served by Centers by Locale

21st CCLC programs can serve all grade levels (prekindergarten through
Grade 12). In order to know where the program is having an impact, it is
important to understand what grade levels the centers have planned to
target. Figure C15 shows, by center locale, 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.[^23] The "other" category includes programs
that serve (1) elementary- and high school-age students (but not middle
school-age students), or (2) all three main grade-level categories (the
vast majority of schools in this category are of this sort).

Figure C15. Proportion of Students Targeted at Each Grade Level by
Locale

![](media/image59.wmf)

> *Note.* Based on 8,167 centers providing data (84 percent of all
> centers in the Grantee Profile).

Key points related to grade level served by center locale are as
follows:

-   Generally, centers found in each locale type target students in each
    grade level at a fairly equivalent rate, although some differences
    are worth noting. Elementary school students are the group most
    frequently targeted for services by centers across all locales, but
    this is especially true for suburban centers.

-   Centers located in rural areas are more likely to target students in
    grade levels that span both elementary and middle school, and that
    extend through elementary, middle, and high school (i.e., the
    "other" category).

### Ethnicity of Attendees by Center Locale

It also is possible to examine whether the ethnicity of attendees varies
with center locale. Figure C16 displays the proportion of regular
attendees in different ethnic categories separately for centers located
in urban, suburban, and rural locales.

Figure C16. Proportion of Regular Attendees of Different Ethnic
Backgrounds,\
by Locale

![](media/image60.wmf){width="5.46875in" height="3.1458333333333335in"}

> *Note.* Based on 6,035 centers providing data in 2004--05 (77 percent
> of all centers in the APR).

Centers located in rural locales serve a greater proportion of white and
Native American students than their suburban and urban counterparts,
while urban centers serve a greater proportion of Hispanic and
especially black attendees than either suburban or rural programs.

### Center Locale and Student Services Received by Attendees

The proportion of attendees receiving special services differs somewhat
by center locale. As depicted in Figure C17, urban centers have a
greater proportion of students who have low English proficiency and who
are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.

Figure C17. Proportion of Regular Attendees Receiving Special Services,
by Locale

![](media/image61.wmf){width="5.125in" height="3.1458333333333335in"}

> *Note.* Based on 6,535 centers providing data in 2004--05 (83 percent
> of all centers in the APR).

**Locale Analysis Summary**

Establishing linkages with the CCD has afforded the opportunity to
explore operational and programming differences between centers located
in urban, suburban, and rural communities, resulting in the
identification of a number of programming differences among programs of
varying locales. As they become less urban in nature, centers have a
tendency to serve fewer total students but across a wider domain of
grade levels, have lower levels of grant funding available per center,
operate for fewer hours per week, have more staff that are school-day
teachers, and serve students who are less likely to be members of an
ethnic minority and eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Of some
interest, however, is that while these differences emerge among urban,
suburban, and rural centers, the median per-pupil cost of providing
programming is largely equivalent for centers from each of the three
community types---each being within\
5 percent of the overall median of \$780 per student for all grantees
active during the span of the 2004--05 reporting period. These findings
suggest that the community context within which programs operate can
have a bearing on the characteristics and attributes of 21st CCLC-funded
programming.

# Appendix C

# State Proficiency Levels

+-----------+----------+-----------------+--------------+--------------+
| **State** | **Number | **Level         | **Level      | **Level      |
|           | of       | Equivalent\     | Equivalent   | Equivalent\  |
|           | Per      | to Basic**      | to           | to           |
|           | formance |                 | Proficient** | Advanced**   |
|           | Levels** |                 |              |              |
+-----------+----------+-----------------+--------------+--------------+
| Alabama   | 4        | Level 1, Level  | Level 3      | Level 4      |
|           |          | 2               |              |              |
+-----------+----------+-----------------+--------------+--------------+
| Alaska    | 4        | Not             | Proficient   | Advanced     |
|           |          | proficient,\    |              |              |
|           |          | Below           |              |              |
|           |          | proficient      |              |              |
+-----------+----------+-----------------+--------------+--------------+
| Arizona   | 4        | Approaches the  | Meets the    | Exceeding    |
|           |          | standard,       | standard     | the standard |
|           |          | Falling below\  |              |              |
|           |          | the standard    |              |              |
+-----------+----------+-----------------+--------------+--------------+
| Arkansas  | 4        | Below basic,    | Proficient   | Advanced     |
|           |          | Basic           |              |              |
+-----------+----------+-----------------+--------------+--------------+
| C         | 5        | Basic, Below    | Proficient   | Advanced     |
| alifornia |          | basic,\         |              |              |
|           |          | Far below basic |              |              |
+-----------+----------+-----------------+--------------+--------------+
| Colorado  | 4        | Unsatisfactory  | Partially    | Advanced     |
|           |          |                 | proficient,  |              |
|           |          |                 | Proficient   |              |
+-----------+----------+-----------------+--------------+--------------+
| Co        | 5        | Basic, Below    | Proficient   | Advanced,    |
| nnecticut |          | basic           |              | Goal         |
+-----------+----------+-----------------+--------------+--------------+
| District  | 4        | Basic, Below    | Proficient   | Advanced     |
| of        |          | basic           |              |              |
| Columbia  |          |                 |              |              |
+-----------+----------+-----------------+--------------+--------------+
| Delaware  | 5        | Below the       | Meets the    | Di           |
|           |          | standard, Well  | standard     | stinguished, |
|           |          | below the       |              | Exceeds the  |
|           |          | standard        |              | standard     |
+-----------+----------+-----------------+--------------+--------------+
| Florida   | 5        | Level 1 - below | Level 3,     | Level 5      |
|           |          | basic Level 2 - | Level 4      |              |
|           |          | basic           |              |              |
+-----------+----------+-----------------+--------------+--------------+
| Georgia   | 6        | CRCT\*: Does    | CRCT\*:      | CRCT\*:      |
|           |          | not meet the    | Meets the    | Exceed the   |
|           |          | standard        | standard     | standard     |
|           |          |                 |              |              |
|           |          | GHSGT\*\*:      | GHSGT\*\*:   | GHSGT\*\*:   |
|           |          | Failure         | Pass         | Pass Plus    |
+-----------+----------+-----------------+--------------+--------------+
| Hawaii    | 4        | Well below      | Meets        | Exceeds      |
|           |          | proficiency     | proficiency  | proficiency  |
|           |          | assessment,     |              |              |
|           |          | Approaches      |              |              |
|           |          | proficiency     |              |              |
|           |          | assessment      |              |              |
+-----------+----------+-----------------+--------------+--------------+
| Idaho     | 3        | Basic           | Proficient   | Advanced     |
+-----------+----------+-----------------+--------------+--------------+
| Illinois  | 3        | Academic        | Meets        | Exceeds      |
|           |          | warning - below | standards    | standards    |
|           |          | standard        |              |              |
+-----------+----------+-----------------+--------------+--------------+
| Indiana   | 3        | Does not pass   | Passes       | Passes plus  |
+-----------+----------+-----------------+--------------+--------------+
| Iowa      | 3        | Low             | Intermediate | High         |
+-----------+----------+-----------------+--------------+--------------+
| Kansas    | 5        | Basic,          | Proficient   | Exemplary,   |
|           |          | Unsatisfactory  |              | Advanced     |
+-----------+----------+-----------------+--------------+--------------+

\*Criterion-Referenced Competency Test (CRCT)

\*\*Georgia High School Graduation Tests (GHSGT)

  --------------- ------------- --------------------- -------------- ---------------
  **State**       **Number of   **Level Equivalent\   **Level        **Level
                  Performance   to Basic**            Equivalent to  Equivalent\
                  Levels**                            Proficient**   to Advanced**

  Kentucky        4             Novice, Apprentice    Proficient     Distinguished
                                (novice                              
                                nonperformance,                      
                                medium, and high;                    
                                apprentice low,\                     
                                medium, and high)                    

  Louisiana       5             Approaches basic      Basic (meets   Advanced,
                                (approaches the       the standard)  Mastery
                                standard),                           (exceeds the
                                Unsatisfactory                       standard)

  Maine           4             Does not meet the     Meets the      Exceeds the
                                standard, Partially\  standard       standard
                                meets the standard                   

  Maryland        3             Basic                 Proficient     Advanced

  Massachusetts   4             Failing (high school) Proficient     Advanced
                                / warning                            
                                (elementary), Needs                  
                                improvement                          

  Michigan        4             Apprentice,\          Meets state    Exceeds state
                                At basic level        standards      standards

  Minnesota       5             Level 1, Level 2      Level 3        Level 4

  Mississippi     4             Minimal, Basic        Proficient     Advanced

  Missouri        5             Step 1, Progressing,  Proficient     Advanced
                                Nearing proficient                   

  Montana         3             Below grade level     At grade level Above grade
                                                                     level

  Nebraska        3             Basic/progressing     Proficient     Advanced

  Nevada          4             Approaches standard,  Meets the      Exceeds the
                                Developing/emergent   standard       standard

  New Hampshire   4             Novice, Basic         Proficient     Advanced

  New Jersey      3             Partially proficient  Proficient     Advanced
                                                                     proficient

  New Mexico      4             Beginning             Proficient     Advanced
                                proficiency, Nearing                 
                                proficiency                          

  New York        4             Level 1               Level 2, Level Level 4
                                                      3              

  North Carolina  4             Level I, Level II     Level III      Level IV

  North Dakota    4             Novice, Partially     Proficient     Advanced
                                proficient                           

  Ohio            4             Basic, Below basic    Proficient     Advanced

  Oklahoma        4             Unsatisfactory,\      Satisfactory   Advanced
                                Limited knowledge                    

  Oregon          5             Nearly meets,\        Meets the      Exceeds the
                                Low, Very low         standard       standard

  Pennsylvania    4             Basic, Below basic    Proficient     Advanced
  --------------- ------------- --------------------- -------------- ---------------

  ------------ ------------- ------------------ -------------- ----------------
  **State**    **Number of   **Level            **Level        **Level
               Performance   Equivalent\        Equivalent to  Equivalent\
               Levels**      to Basic**         Proficient**   to Advanced**

  Rhode Island 5             Nearly achieves    Achieves the   Achieves the
                             the standard,      standard       standard with
                             Below the                         honors
                             standard, Little                  
                             evidence of                       
                             achievement                       

  South        4             Below basic, Basic Proficient     Advanced
  Carolina                                                     

  South Dakota 4             Basic, Below basic Proficient     Advanced

  Tennessee    3             Below proficient   Proficient     Advanced

  Texas        3             Does not meet the  Meets the      Commended
                             standard           standard       performance

  Utah         4             Minimal, Partial   Sufficient     Substantial

  Vermont      5             Nearly achieves    Achieves the   Achieves the
                             the standard,      standard       standard with
                             Below the                         honors
                             standard, Little                  
                             evidence of                       
                             achievement                       

  Virginia     3             Failing - does not Passes,        Passes, advanced
                             meet the standard  proficient     

  Washington   4             Level 1 -- Well    Level 3 -- Met Level 4 -- Above
                             below standards,   standard       standard
                             Level 2 -- Below                  
                             standards                         

  West         5             Partial mastery,   Mastery        Distinguished,
  Virginia                   Novice                            Above mastery

  Wisconsin    4             Basic, Minimal     Proficient     Advanced

  Wisconsin    4             Basic, Minimal     Proficient     Advanced

  Wyoming      4             Novice, Partially  Proficient     Advanced
                             proficient                        
  ------------ ------------- ------------------ -------------- ----------------

> Based on information provided by states as part of the APR State
> Decision Pages, a component of the Profile and Performance Information
> Collection System (PPICS).

# Appendix D 

# Glossary

+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **21st CCLC Program** | From the U.S. Department of Education        |
|                       | website                                      |
|                       | (www.ed.gov/programs/21stcclc/index.html):   |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | > "The 21st Century Community Learning       |
|                       | > Centers Program is a key component of ...  |
|                       | > \[the\] No Child Left Behind Act \[of      |
|                       | > 2001\]. 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, re-authorized  |
|                       | > under Title IV, Part B, of the No Child    |
|                       | > Left Behind Act of 2001, 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  |
|                       | > math. 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 rather than         |
|                       | directly by the U.S. Department of           |
|                       | Education.                                   |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **21st Century        | A community learning center offers academic, |
| Community Learning    | artistic, and cultural enrichment            |
| Center**              | opportunities to students and their families |
|                       | during nonschool hours (before or after      |
|                       | school) or periods when school is not in     |
|                       | session (including 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.                                |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Academic enrichment | Enrichment activities expand on students'    |
| learning programs**   | 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. |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Academic            | These activities specifically target         |
| im                    | students whose academic performance has been |
| provement/remediation | deemed to be in need of improvement---given  |
| programs**            | that the student in 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.             |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Activities**        | Statutorily authorized events or             |
|                       | undertakings at the center that involve one  |
|                       | or more program participants.                |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Activities for      | These activities specifically target         |
| limit                 | students with limited English proficiency    |
| ed-English-proficient | and are designed to further enhance          |
| students**            | students' ability to utilize the English     |
|                       | language.                                    |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Activities that     | Activities targeting adult family members    |
| target adult family   | must require ongoing and sustained           |
| members**             | participation by the adult family member in  |
|                       | order to achieve the acquisition of          |
|                       | knowledge or a skill that is 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 that        |
|                       | involves a meal and social activities would  |
|                       | not conform to these requirements.           |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Activities that     | These activities specifically target truant, |
| target truant,        | expelled, or suspended students who have     |
| expelled, or          | become estranged from traditional            |
| suspended students**  | educational settings. They are designed to   |
|                       | reengage these students in educational       |
|                       | services and/or address academic             |
|                       | attainment/behavioral issues through         |
|                       | counseling and support.                      |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Adult family member | Adults age 19 or older who are not in        |
| attendees**           | elementary, middle, or high school but are   |
|                       | family members of participating children.    |
|                       | They participate in educational services or  |
|                       | other activities appropriate for adults      |
|                       | provided by the center.                      |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Annual Performance  | All grantees active across the span of a     |
| Report (APR)**        | given reporting period will need to provide  |
|                       | information required as part of the Annual   |
|                       | Performance Report process. The purposes of  |
|                       | the APR 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.                                     |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Career/job          | These activities may target youths and/or    |
| training**            | adults participating in the 21st CCLC        |
|                       | program. They are designed to support the    |
|                       | development of a defined skill set that is   |
|                       | directly transferable to a specific          |
|                       | vocation, industry, or career. For youths    |
|                       | participating in center programming, this    |
|                       | category includes activities that are        |
|                       | designed to provide exposure to various      |
|                       | types of careers and that help inform youths |
|                       | of the skills needed to obtain a given       |
|                       | career.                                      |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Center**            | The physical location where grant-funded     |
|                       | services and activities are provided to      |
|                       | participating students and adults. (See      |
|                       | **21st Century Community Learning Center**.) |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Center              | Staff members whose primary role is          |
| administrators/\      | coordinating the center's activities.        |
| coordinators**        |                                              |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Cohort**            | A grouping of grantees or centers determined |
|                       | by whether a given grantee/center first      |
|                       | reported APR information for the 2003--04    |
|                       | reporting period (Cohort 1) or for the       |
|                       | 2004--05 reporting period (Cohort 2). This   |
|                       | definition is different from the definition  |
|                       | of *cohort* that may be used in individual   |
|                       | states according to when the grantee         |
|                       | received its award. Note that some of the    |
|                       | Cohort 2 centers are new centers opened by   |
|                       | Cohort 1 grantees.                           |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Community-based     | An entity organized and operated exclusively |
| o                     | for one or more of the purposes set forth in |
| rganization/nonprofit | Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3). For |
| agency**              | the purposes of completing the APR, in order |
|                       | 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.                    |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Community partner** | An organization other than the grantee that  |
|                       | actively contributes to the 21st CCLC-funded |
|                       | project.                                     |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Community service/\ | These activities are characterized by        |
| service learning      | defined service tasks performed by students  |
| programs**            | that address a given community need and that |
|                       | provide for structured opportunities that    |
|                       | link tasks to the acquisition of values,     |
|                       | skills, or knowledge by participating        |
|                       | youths.                                      |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Competition         | The Competition Overview module of PPICS     |
| overview**            | 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.                         |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Drug and violence   | These activities are designed to (1) prevent |
| prevention,           | youths from engaging in high-risk behaviors, |
| counseling, and       | including the use of drugs and alcohol; and  |
| character education   | (2) promote the amelioration of the causal   |
| programs**            | factors that may lead youths to participate  |
|                       | in such activities through counseling and    |
|                       | support, and/or the cultivation of core      |
|                       | ethical values such as caring, honesty,      |
|                       | fairness, responsibility, and respect for    |
|                       | self and others that are likely to           |
|                       | contribute to prevention efforts.            |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Expanded library    | 21st CCLC funds are used specifically to     |
| hours**               | expand the normal operating hours of a       |
|                       | library.                                     |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Faith-based         | An entity whose primary program area can be  |
| organization**        | defined as being religion related. A         |
|                       | faith-based organization could be a          |
|                       | religious congregation or an organization    |
|                       | that primarily undertakes activities that    |
|                       | are of a religious nature. Please note that  |
|                       | YMCAs/YWCAs are not considered to be         |
|                       | faith-based organizations.                   |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Federal             | The grant directly administered by the U.S.  |
| discretionary grant** | Department of Education (rather than state   |
|                       | education agencies) prior to the passage of  |
|                       | the No Child Left Behind Act.                |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Federal proficiency | State proficiency levels have been matched   |
| level**               | to one of three federal proficiency levels:  |
|                       | basic, proficient, and advanced.             |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Feeder school**     | Any public or private school that provides   |
|                       | students to the 21st CCLC.                   |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Free or             | From the U.S. Department of Agriculture      |
| reduced-price lunch** | website                                      |
|                       | (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 lunch to        |
|                       | > children each school day. The program was  |
|                       | > established under the National School      |
|                       | > Lunch Act, signed by President Harry       |
|                       | > Truman in 1946."                           |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Government          | From the U.S. Department of Agriculture      |
| Performance and       | website                                      |
| Results Act (GPRA)**  | (www.rma.usda.gov/news/2004/05/gpra.pdf):    |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | > "The Government Performance and Results    |
|                       | > Act of 1993 (GPRA) 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 the 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."      |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Grantee**           | The entity serving as the fiduciary agent    |
|                       | for a given 21st CCLC grant.                 |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Grantee Profile**   | 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 that 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 will     |
|                       | need to be completed for all 21st CCLC       |
|                       | grantees in a state funded through           |
|                       | state-administered competitions.             |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **High-poverty        | A school serving students who live in a      |
| school**              | high-poverty area. High poverty is           |
|                       | determined by several methods depending on   |
|                       | the state, including free or reduced-price   |
|                       | lunch eligibility and census data.           |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Locale (community   | The type of community in which a center is   |
| type)**               | located, split into urban, suburban, or      |
|                       | rural based on data from the Common Core of  |
|                       | Data and connected to this dataset via       |
|                       | center ZIP code, the name of the city the    |
|                       | center was located in, and/or if available   |
|                       | in PPICS, the unique identifier assigned by  |
|                       | the National Center for Education            |
|                       | Statistics.                                  |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Mentoring**         | Mentoring activities primarily are           |
|                       | characterized by matching students           |
|                       | one-on-one with one or more adult role       |
|                       | models, often from business or the           |
|                       | community, for guidance and support.         |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Nationally          | A nonprofit entity that is associated with a |
| affiliated nonprofit  | national organization. Local YMCAs, YWCAs,   |
| agency**              | the Girl Scouts, the Boy Scouts, Big         |
|                       | Brothers/Big Sisters, and Boys and Girls     |
|                       | Clubs are all considered to be nationally    |
|                       | affiliated nonprofit agencies.               |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Nonregulatory       | Documentation provided by the U.S.           |
| guidance**            | Department of Education that, while not part |
|                       | of the law, provides description and         |
|                       | clarification to support programs operating  |
|                       | under the 21st Century Community Learning    |
|                       | Centers grant.                               |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Nonschool-day staff | Program staff members who do not work in the |
| with some or no       | school during the school day (as faculty or  |
| college**             | staff) and do not have a college degree.     |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Nonteaching School  | Staff members who are employed by the school |
| Staff**               | but do not have teaching responsibilities    |
|                       | (e.g. office and administrative staff).      |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Partner**           | See **Community Partner**.                   |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Performance         | A measure intended to determine the          |
| indicator**           | effectiveness of the program in achieving    |
|                       | one of its goals                             |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Priority,           | A program attribute (such as having a        |
| mandatory**           | community partner or 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.                                    |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Priority,           | A program attribute (such as having a        |
| optional**            | community partner or 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.       |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Profile and         | PPICS is a Web-based data collection system  |
| Performance           | developed to capture information regarding   |
| Information           | 21st Century Community Learning Center (21st |
| Collection System     | CCLC) programs.                              |
| (PPICS)**             |                                              |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Programs that       | Activities that specifically target adult    |
| promote parental      | family members of youths participating in    |
| involvement and       | the 21st CCLC program and that are designed  |
| family literacy**     | to more actively engage parents in           |
|                       | supporting the educational attainment of     |
|                       | their children and/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  |
| activities**          | but rather allow students 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**  | 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 Annual          |
|                       | Performance Report coincides with the school |
|                       | year and includes the summer prior to the    |
|                       | school year.                                 |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Service learning**  | See **Community service/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 assessment**  | The assessment(s) administered by a given    |
|                       | state relied upon by the state education     |
|                       | agency (SEA) to meet consolidated reporting  |
|                       | requirements under the NCLB Act of 2001.     |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Subcontractor**     | 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            | The means by which organizations are able to |
| competition**         | apply for and receive subgrants from the SEA |
|                       | to operate a 21st Century Community Learning |
|                       | Centers (21st CCLC) program.                 |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Supplemental        | Supplemental educational services are a      |
| educational           | component of Title I of the Elementary and   |
| services**            | Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as           |
|                       | reauthorized by the NCLB Act. These services |
|                       | are meant to provide extra academic          |
|                       | assistance to increase the academic          |
|                       | achievement of eligible students in schools  |
|                       | that have not met state targets for          |
|                       | increasing student achievement (adequate     |
|                       | yearly progress). 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 supplemental educational services.   |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Teacher survey**    | This survey is administered at the end of    |
|                       | the year. The survey asks school-day         |
|                       | teachers to report if the behavior of        |
|                       | regular attendees improved or did not        |
|                       | improve in certain areas. Teacher selection: |
|                       | For every student identified as a regular    |
|                       | attendee (30 days or more), one of his or    |
|                       | her regular school-day teachers should have  |
|                       | been 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 who    |
|                       | also are serving as 21st CCLC program staff  |
|                       | may be included, it is preferred that        |
|                       | programs survey teachers who are not also    |
|                       | program staff. Only one teacher survey       |
|                       | should be filled out for every student       |
|                       | identified as a regular attendee.            |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Title I**           | The term refers to Title I of the No Child   |
|                       | Left Behind Act. From the law                |
|                       | (w                                           |
|                       | ww.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg1.html): |
|                       |                                              |
|                       | > "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/homework   | These activities provide direct assistance   |
| help**                | with classroom work. Tutors 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.                                  |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Youth development   | A youth development worker is any paid staff |
| worker**              | 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 non-teaching-based college degree or   |
|                       | higher.                                      |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+
| **Youth leadership    | These activities intentionally promote youth |
| activities**          | leadership through skill development and the |
|                       | provision of formal leadership opportunities |
|                       | that are designed to foster and inspire      |
|                       | leadership aptitude in participating youth.  |
+-----------------------+----------------------------------------------+

[^1]: These states are CO, ID, IN, NC, NE, NJ, NV, NY, OH, OK, OR, PR,
    SC, UT, VA, VT, WI, WV, and WY.

[^2]: The mean number of applicants decreased from 60.4 to 54.8.

[^3]: It is important to note that PPICS requested information on the
    extent to which state had allocated its 2 percent and 3 percent
    funds. No information was collected from states on the actual
    expenditure of these funds.

[^4]: See Appendix B for a thorough explanation of the locale variable,
    along with additional analyses involving locale.

[^5]: 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.

[^6]: Note that programs serving prekindergarten students are included
    in the "Elementary" category.

[^7]: Changes in proportions from one year to the next are expressed as
    percentage point change (new % -- old %) / old %, rather than raw
    change (new % -- old %).

[^8]: This excludes the Career/Adult category, which is new this year.

[^9]: 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.

[^10]: In order to account for the fact that last year's APR did not
    include summer school programs, Figure 22 displays the median total
    attendees for the school year only. However, the data on regular
    attendees are not disaggregated by school year or summer. Therefore,
    these data include only those centers that did not offer summer
    programming.

[^11]: Based on school year attendees in 3,455 centers (100 percent of
    centers active in both 2003--04 and 2004--05).

[^12]: Because the 2004 APR did not include summer attendees, it was
    necessary to include only those centers that did not offer summer
    programming during either reporting year. Thus, these statistics are
    based on 1,290 centers (37 percent of centers active in both
    2003--04 and 2004--05).

[^13]: The federal teacher survey can be found online
    (www2.learningpt.org/ppics/survey.asp).

[^14]: States that chose this option were expected to ensure they or
    their grantees reported whatever results they had for regular
    attendees, specifically in accordance with the federal definition of
    a regular attendee.

[^15]: Not reported for 2003--04

[^16]: Not reported for 2003--04

[^17]: The survey instrument was changed this year to allow teachers to
    select "did not need improvement." This option was not present in
    the 2003--04 survey. It also is important to note that efforts to
    validate the teacher survey demonstrated that the items functioned
    differently depending upon the grade level of the student in
    question.

[^18]: The survey instrument was changed this year to allow teachers to
    select "did not need improvement." This option was not present in
    the 2003--04 survey. It also is important to note that efforts to
    validate the teacher survey demonstrated that the items functioned
    differently, depending upon the grade level of the student in
    question.

[^19]: See Appendix B for a thorough explanation of the locale variable,
    along with additional analyses that explore differences between
    urban, suburban, and rural programs.

[^20]: Locale information was not available in the CCD for centers
    located in Puerto Rico.

[^21]: Of those centers associated with grantees receiving awards during
    June 2005 or before.

[^22]: Centers classified as "undetermined" or "outside the U.S.
    mainland" have been excluded.

[^23]: 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.