Department of Education

SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Request

CONTENTS

Page

Summary of request:

Appropriations Language ........................................................................................................E-1

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes.......................................................................E-2

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers ..............................................................................E-3

Summary of Changes .............................................................................................................E-4

Authorizing Legislation............................................................................................................E-5

Appropriations History.............................................................................................................E-6

Significant Items in FY 2015 Appropriations Reports...............................................................E-7

Summary of request................................................................................................................E-8

Activities:

Safe and drug-free schools and communities national activities.........................................E-11

Elementary and secondary school counseling....................................................................E-18

Physical education program ...............................................................................................E-22

Promise Neighborhoods.....................................................................................................E-28
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Appropriations Language

[For carrying out activities authorized by part A of title IV and subparts 1, 2, and 10 of part 

D of title V of the ESEA, $223,315,000: Provided, That $70,000,000 shall be available for 

subpart 2 of part A of title IV1

, of which up to $5,000,000, to remain available until expended, 

shall be for the Project School Emergency Response to Violence (‘‘Project SERV’’) program to 

provide education-related services to local educational agencies and institutions of higher 

education in which the learning environment has been disrupted due to a violent or traumatic 

crisis2

: Provided further, That $56,754,000 shall be available for Promise Neighborhoods and 

shall be available through December 31, 20153.] (Department of Education Appropriations Act, 

2015.)

NOTES

No appropriations language is included for this account. All programs are authorized under the expired 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act; when new authorizing legislation for the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act is enacted, appropriations language for these programs will be proposed.

Each language provision that is followed by a footnote reference is explained in the Analysis of Language 

Provisions and Changes document, which follows the appropriations language.

E-1
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1

[Provided, That $70,000,000 shall be 

available for subpart 2 of part A of title IV...]

This language earmarks funds for Safe and 

Drug-Free Schools and Communities 

(SDFSC) National Programs (subpart 2 of 

part A of title IV).

2

[...of which up to $5,000,000, to remain 

available until expended, shall be for the 

Project School Emergency Response to 

Violence (‘‘Project SERV’’) program to 

provide education-related services to local 

educational agencies and institutions of 

higher education in which the learning 

environment has been disrupted due to a 

violent or traumatic crisis...]

This language earmarks funds for Project 

SERV (under SDFSC National Programs) 

and makes these funds available for 

obligation at the Federal level until they are 

expended.

3

[Provided further, That $56,754,000 shall be 

available for Promise Neighborhoods and 

shall be available through December 31, 

2015.]

This language earmarks funds for the 

Promise Neighborhoods program, and gives 

the Department an additional 3 months 

beyond the end of fiscal year 2015 to 

obligate them.

E-2
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2014 2015 2016

Discretionary authority:

Discretionar y authority: Appropriation .......................................................... $270,892 $223,315 $349,561

E-3
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2015................................................................................................. $223,315

2016................................................................................................. 349,561

Net change ............................................................... +126,246

Increases: 2015 base

Change 

from base

Program:

Program Increase for Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 

Communities National Activities to support additional 

projects to combat such school climate issues as student 

discipline, disruptive and problem behavior, violence, 

bullying, and drug use, through the development, 

enhancement, and expansion of systems of support for

schools implementing an evidence-based multi-tiered 

behavioral framework for improving behavioral outcomes

and learning conditions for all students, as well as related 

technical assistance. $70,000 +$20,000

Program Increase for Physical Education to increase the number 

of projects designed to help initiate, expand, and improve 

physical education programs for students in kindergarten 

through 12th grade to increase child fitness, address the 

serious issue of childhood obesity, and help children 

develop more healthy lifestyles. 47,000 +13,000

Program Increase for Promise Neighborhoods to expand the 

program and support significant new investments in 

grants to community-based organizations for the 

development or implementation of plans to provide a 

continuum of services and supports to children and youth 

in our most distressed communities, from cradle to 

career, in order to significantly improve their 

developmental, educational, and life outcomes. 56,754 +93,246

Subtotal, increases +126,246

Net change +126,426

E-4
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2015

Authorized

Footnote

2015

Estimate

2016

Authorized

footnote

2016

Request

Safe and drug-free schools and communities national 

activities (ESEA IV-A, Subpart 2, Section 4121) 0

1, 2

$70,000 To be determined

1

$90,000

Elementary and secondary school counseling (ESEA-V-D, 

Subpart 2) 0

1

49,561 To be determined149,561

Physical education program (ESEA-V-D, Subpart 10) 0

1

47,000 To be determined160,000

Promise neighborhoods (ESEA-V-D, Subpart 1) 01 56,754 To be determined1 150,000

Unfunded authorizations

Unfunded authorizati ons:

Safe and drug-free schools and communities State grants 

(ESEA IV-A, Subpart 1) 0

3

0 0

3

0 Unfunded authorizati ons: 

Alcohol abuse reduction (ESEA Section 4129) 03

0 0

3

0 Unfunded authorizati ons: 

Mentoring program (ESEA Section 4130) 0

3

0 0

3

0 Unfunded authorizati ons: 

Character education (ESEA V-D, Subpart 3) 03

0 0

3

0 Unfunded authorizati ons: 

Grants directed at preventing and reducing alcohol abuse at 

institutions of higher education (P.L. 109-422, 

Section 2(e)(2) 04 0 04 0

Total definite authorization 0 0

Total appropriation 223,315 349,561

Portion of the request subject to reauthorization 349,561

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2016. 2 Funds appropriated for Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities National Programs in fiscal year 2015 may not be increased above the amount 

appropriated in fiscal year 2014 unless the amount appropriated for Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants in fiscal year 2015 is at least 

10 percent greater than the amount appropriated in 2014. 3 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. The Administration is not seeking reauthorizing legislation. 4 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011. The Administration is not seeking reauthorizing legislation.

E-5
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget 

Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance

Footnote Senate 

Allowance

Footnote

Appropriation

Footnote

2007 $266,627 N/A

1

N/A

1

$729,518

Supplemental (P.L. 110-28) 8,594

2008 324,248 $760,575 $697,112 639,404

2009 281,963 714,481

2

666,384

2

690,370

2010 413,608 395,753 438,061

3

393,053

2011 1,786,166 384,841

4

426,053

3

288,465

5

2012 1,781,132 65,000

6

270,463

6

255,753

2013 1,447,539 108,487

7

259,589

7

242,375

2014 1,831,673 N/A

8

330,481

3

270,892

2015 1,463,370 N/A

8

270,892

9

223,315

2016 349,561

_________________

1 This account operated under a full-year continuing resolution (P.L. 110-5). House and Senate allowances are 

shown as N/A (Not Available) because neither body passed a separate appropriations bill. 2 The levels for the House and Senate allowances reflect action on the regular annual 2009 appropriations bill, 

which proceeded in the 110th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the Senate Committee. 3 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Committee action only. 4 The level for the House allowance reflects the House-passed full-year continuing resolution. 5 The level for appropriation reflects the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 

2011 (P.L. 112-10). 6 The level for the House allowance reflects an introduced bill; the level for the Senate allowance reflects Senate 

Committee action only. 7 The level for the House and Senate allowances reflect action on the regular annual 2013 appropriations bill, 

which proceeded in the 112th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the Senate Committee. 8 The House Allowance is shown as N/A because there was no Subcommittee action. 9 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Senate Subcommittee action only.

E-6
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Significant Items in FY 2015 Appropriations Reports

Physical Education

Senate: The Committee requests that the Department provide a report on the steps it has 

taken, and will take, to help State and local educational agencies integrate 

meaningful physical education and physical activity into the educational 

experience to address the recommendations made by the 2013 Institute of 

Medicine report titled ‘‘Educating the Student Body: Taking Physical Activity and 

Physical Education to School,” which states that ‘‘extensive scientific evidence 

demonstrates that regular physical activity promotes growth and development in 

youth and has multiple benefits for physical, mental, and cognitive health.”

Response: The Department will provide the information to the Committee as requested.

E-7
 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2011 INITIAL REQUEST TO OMB

Summary of request

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2016 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET 

Click here for accessible version 

(in thousands of dollars) 2016

Category 2014 2015 President's 

Account, Program and Activity Code Appropriation Appropriation Budget Amount Percent

Safe Schools and Citizenship Education

1. Safe and drug-free schools and communities national activities (ESEA IV-A-2, section 4121) D 90,000 70,000 90,000 20,000 28.571%

2. Elementary and secondary school counseling (ESEA V-D, subpart 2) D 49,561 49,561 49,561 0 0.000%

3. Physical education program (ESEA V-D, subpart 10) D 74,577 47,000 60,000 13,000 27.660%

4. Promise Neighborhoods (ESEA V-D, subpart 1) D 56,754 56,754 150,000 93,246 164.299%

 Total D 270,892 223,315 349,561 126,246 56.533%

NOTES: D = discretionary program; M = mandatory program; FY = fiscal year 

Accounts are shown under the administering office that has primary responsibility for most programs in that account; however, there may be some programs that are administered by another office.

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

2016 President's Budget 

Compared to 2015 Appropriation

E-8
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Summary of Request

The programs in the Safe Schools and Citizenship Education account support activities to foster 

a safe, secure, and drug-free learning environment; facilitate emergency management and 

preparedness; prevent drug use; establish, expand, or improve counseling and physical 

education programs for students; and improve significantly the educational and developmental 

outcomes of children within some of the Nation’s most distressed communities.

All of the programs in this account are authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act and are, therefore, subject to reauthorization this year. The budget request assumes that 

the programs in this account will be implemented in fiscal year 2016 under reauthorized 

legislation. Funding in the account is requested for the following four programs:

• $90 million for Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities National Activities, an 

increase of $20 million over the 2015 level, focused on key initiatives in “Now Is The 

Time,” the President's common-sense plan to make our schools safer and protect our 

children from gun violence. These include $62 million (of which $15 million would 

support an estimated 30 new awards) for School Climate Transformation Grants, and 

related technical assistance, to help schools train their teachers and other school staff to 

implement evidence-based behavioral intervention strategies to improve school climate; 

and $15 million for Project Prevent continuation grant awards to LEAs to help schools in 

communities with pervasive violence break the cycle of violence. Funds would also be 

used to help LEAs and IHEs recover from emergencies under Project SERV (School 

Emergency Response to Violence), and for evaluation, data collection, dissemination, 

outreach, and related forms of technical assistance.

• $49.6 million for the Elementary and Secondary School Counseling program, which 

would allow approximately 149 LEAs to hire or train qualified school counselors, school 

psychologists, child and adolescent psychiatrists, and school social workers to provide 

students with counseling services that provide benefits for both students and teachers by 

helping to create a safe school environment, improve teacher effectiveness and 

classroom management, increase academic achievement, and promote student wellbeing and healthy development. These grants will also support the development of 

innovative strategies for providing school counseling services that show potential for 

replication and dissemination.

• $60 million for the Physical Education program, to provide equipment and support to 

enable students to participate actively in physical education activities, and for training 

and education for teachers and staff, in order help students in kindergarten through 

12th grade make progress toward meeting State standards for physical education. The 

request would enable the program to continue 66 grants and make approximately 

68 new awards, which will support implementation of community-wide strategies to 

increase child fitness, address the serious issue of childhood obesity, and help children 

develop more healthy lifestyles. 

• $150 million for the Promise Neighborhoods program, a $93 million increase, to provide 

competitive 1-year planning grants and up to 5-year implementation grants to 

community-based organizations for the development and implementation of 

comprehensive neighborhood programs and supports designed to combat the effects of 

poverty and improve educational and life outcomes for children and youth. Funds would 

E-9
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Summary of Request – continued 

support an estimated 25 new planning grants and up to 25 new implementation grants, 

as well as support for 7 continuation awards for the 2012 cohort of implementation 

grantees. In coordination with the Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD), the Department would reserve a portion of 2016 funds for planning grants to 

communities that intend to apply for funding under both the Promise Neighborhoods and 

HUD’s Choice Neighborhoods programs. Funds would also be used to expand technical 

assistance to grantees.

E-10
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Activities:

Safe and drug-free schools and communities national activities

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part A, Subpart 2)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2016 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

PP

2015 2016 Change

$70,000 $90,000 +$20,000

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2016.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities (SDFSC) National Activities statute 

authorizes the Department to carry out a wide variety of discretionary activities designed to 

prevent the illegal use of drugs and violence among, and promote safety and positive school 

environments for, students. These activities may be carried out through grants to or contracts 

with public and private organizations and individuals, or through agreements with other Federal 

agencies. In recent years these activities have included:

• Schools Climate Transformation grants to State educational agencies (SEAs) and local 

educational agencies (LEAs) to develop and adopt, or expand to more schools, a multitiered decision-making framework that guides the selection, integration, and 

implementation of the best evidence-based behavioral practices for improving school 

climate and behavioral outcomes for all students.

• Project Prevent awards to LEAs to help schools in communities with pervasive violence 

break the cycle of violence by offering students: (1) access to school-based counseling 

services, or referrals to community-based counseling services, for trauma or anxiety 

(including post-traumatic stress disorder); (2) social and emotional supports (such as 

enhancing coping skills) to help address the effects of violence; (3) conflict resolution 

and other school-based strategies to prevent future violence; and (4) a safer and 

improved school environment, which may include activities to decrease the incidence of 

harassment, bullying, violence, and gang involvement.

• Grants to SEAs and technical assistance to help LEAs and schools develop, implement, 

and improve their emergency management plans.

• Safe and Supportive Schools grants to SEAs for projects that take a systematic 

approach to improving student safety and reducing drug abuse through measurement 

systems that assess conditions for learning, which must include school safety, and the 

implementation of programmatic interventions that address problems identified by data. 

E-11
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Safe and drug-free schools and communities national activities

• Project SERV (School Emergency Response to Violence), which provides educationrelated services – including increased safety and security, and counseling and referral to 

mental health services as needed – to LEAs and to institutions of higher education 

(IHEs) in which the learning environment has been disrupted due to a violent or 

traumatic crisis.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Year (dollars in thousands)

2011.........................................................$119,226

2012.............................................................64,877

2013.............................................................61,484

2014.............................................................90,000

2015.............................................................70,000

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2016, the Administration is requesting $90 million for Safe and Drug-Free 

Schools and Communities (SDFSC) National Activities, an increase of $20 million more than the 

fiscal year 2015 level, to expand support for key elements of the President’s Now is the Time 

initiative (NITT), which is designed to protect our children and our communities by reducing gun 

violence, making schools safer, and increasing access to mental health services. NITT is based 

in part on the findings of the Safe Schools Initiative, a collaboration between the U.S. Secret 

Service and the Department of Education in the wake of the 1999 Columbine tragedy. In 

consultation with experts as part of the Safe Schools Initiative, researchers examined and 

analyzed incidents of targeted school violence from 1974 through 2000. Their report includes 

evidence that keeping students safe in school requires a positive school climate in which 

students and staff feel supported socially and emotionally, are engaged in activities that 

promote achievement and development, and have open lines of communication within the 

school as well as between the school and the community. 

Other activities under this request are designed to counter the effects of pervasive violence on 

students, and to restore the learning environment following a violent or traumatic incident. Key 

activities include the following:

• $62.4 million for School Climate Transformation Grants, and related technical 

assistance, to help schools train their teachers and other school staff to implement 

evidence-based strategies to improve school climate. School Climate Transformation 

Grants, first awarded in fiscal year 2014, build on the development and testing of 

evidence-based multi-tiered decisionmaking frameworks, such as Positive Behavioral 

Interventions and Supports. A key aspect of this multi-tiered approach is that it provides 

differing levels of support and interventions to students based on their needs. The

2016 request would support the third year of 5-year grants to State educational agencies 

and local educational agencies, and the first year of a new $15 million cohort of grants to 

LEAs. 

E-12
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Safe and drug-free schools and communities national activities

In the 2014 competition, the Department received more than 400 applications from LEAs 

for School Climate Transformation Grants, but only had enough funds to award grants to 

71 LEAs. Yet 112 of the applications scored 95 points or above, out of a possible total 

110. While the Department would hold a new grant competition in 2016 rather than fund 

additional 2014 applicants, the Department expects to again receive a large number of 

high-quality applications. The $15 million requested for new awards would support an 

estimated 30 grants.

Fiscal year 2016 funds would be used to implement data tracking systems; train staff to 

analyze the data and select the most appropriate programs to address students’ needs; 

train staff to implement the selected programs with fidelity; and purchase associated 

programmatic materials.

A key strategy of Now is the Time is to encourage collaboration among Federal agencies 

in providing resources that States and communities can use to address school climate, 

school safety, and mental health issues in a comprehensive manner. For example, 

approximately one-third of the Department’s 2014 cohort of LEA School Climate 

Transformation Grants is also receiving competitive grant funding from the Department 

of Health and Human Service’s Project AWARE (Advancing Wellness and Resilience in 

Education), administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Services Administration, 

to increase awareness of mental health issues among school-aged youth, including 

training in detection and response to mental illness for adults who interact with youth in 

school and community settings.

• $14.6 million for Project Prevent continuation grant awards to LEAs to help schools in 

communities with pervasive violence break the cycle of violence. Research shows that 

both direct and indirect exposure to community violence can impact children’s mental 

health and development and can increase the likelihood that these children will later 

commit violent acts themselves. Being the victim of, or being exposed to, community 

violence in childhood is also associated with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 

Project Prevent addresses this problem by supporting the deployment of resources and 

technical assistance through local projects that offer students (1) access to school-based 

counseling services, or referrals to community-based counseling services, for trauma or 

anxiety (including PTSD); (2) social and emotional supports (such as enhancing coping 

skills) to help address the effects of violence; (3) conflict resolution and other schoolbased strategies to prevent future violence; and (4) a safer and improved school 

environment, which may include activities to decrease the incidence of harassment, 

bullying, violence, and gang involvement.

• $4.5 million for the National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments 

(NCSSLE). The NCSSLE provides technical assistance to SEAs and LEAs, as well as 

to IHEs, relating to alcohol and drug use and violence prevention at the elementary, 

secondary, and postsecondary levels; supports the collection and dissemination of 

information and best practices on improving school climate; provides technical 

assistance to the Project Prevent grantees to strengthen the implementation of their 

projects; and will provide technical assistance to LEAs and schools that utilize the model 

school climate survey the National Center for Education Statistics will release in 2015, in 

E-13
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Safe and drug-free schools and communities national activities

selecting and implementing programs, policies, and practices that are responsive to the 

survey results. The Budget requests $2 million in increased funding to help ensure that 

the NCSSLE has sufficient resources specifically to provide technical assistance to LEAs 

on the selection and implementation of evidence-based substance abuse prevention 

programs.

• $2.5 million to continue the Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools 

Technical Assistance Center to provide resources and training to support school 

emergency management efforts for schools, LEAs, and IHEs in school emergency 

preparedness, including the development and implementation of comprehensive allhazards emergency management plans.

The request also includes $5 million for Project SERV (School Emergency Response to 

Violence) to replenish a longstanding reserve fund that supports the provision of educationrelated services to LEAs and IHEs in which the learning environment has been disrupted due to 

a violent or traumatic crisis. Consistent with previous appropriations, funds for Project SERV 

are requested on a no-year basis, to remain available for obligation at the Federal level until 

expended. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 2015 2016

School Climate Transformation Grants

SEA grant award funds (new) $7,340 0 0 School Climate Tr ansformati on Gr ants: 

SEA grant award funds (continuation) 0 $7,422 $7,529 School Climate Tr ansformati on Gr ants: 

LEA grant award funds (new) 35,848 0 15,000 School Climate Tr ansformati on Gr ants: 

LEA grant award funds (continuation) 0 36,193 36,677 School Climate Tr ansformati on Gr ants:

Technical assistance (continuation) 3,287 3,080 3,000 School Climate Tr ansformati on Gr ants:

Peer review of new award applications 373 0 150 School Climate Tr ansformati on Gr ants:

 Total 46,848 46,695 62,356 School Climate Tr ansformati on Gr ants: 

Number of SEA awards (new) 12 0 0 School Climate Tr ansformati on Gr ants: 

Number of SEA awards (continuation) 0 12 12 School Climate Tr ansformati on Gr ants:

Range of SEA awards $260-$750 $252-$750 $256-$750 School Climate Tr ansformati on Gr ants:

Average SEA award $612 $619 $627

School Climate Tr ansformati on Gr ants:

Number of LEA awards (new) 71 0 30

Number of LEA awards (continuation) 0 71 71 School Climate Tr ansformati on Gr ants:

Range of LEA awards $139-$750 $161-$750 $178-$750 School Climate Tr ansformati on Gr ants: 

Average LEA award $505 $510 $512

E-14
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Safe and drug-free schools and communities national activities

Measures 2014 2015 2016

Project Prevent

Grant award funds (new) $14,447 0 0 Project Prevent: 

Grant award funds (continuation) 0 $14,625 $14,574 Project Prevent:

Peer review of new award applications 150 0 0 Project Prevent:

 Total 14,597 14,625 14,574

Project Prevent:

Number of LEA awards (new) 22 0 0 Project Prevent: 

Number of LEA awards (continuation) 0 22 22 Project Prevent:

Range of awards $270-$1,000 $291-$1,000 $291-$1,000 Project Prevent:

Average award $657 $665 $662

School Emergency Management 

Activities 

Grant award funds (new) $13,083 0 0 School Emergency M anagement Acti viti es:

Peer review of new award applications 44 $5 0 School Emergency M anagement Acti viti es:

Technical assistance (new) 0 2,500 0 School Emergency M anagement Acti viti es:

Technical assistance (continuation) 2,500 0 $2,500 School Emergency M anagement Acti viti es:

 Total 15,627 2,505 2,500

School Emergency M anagement Acti viti es:

Number of SEA awards 25 0 0 School Emergency M anagement Acti viti es:

Range of SEA awards $249-$1,098 0 0 School Emergency M anagement Acti viti es:

Average SEA award $523 0 0 School Emergency M anagement Acti viti es:

Bureau of Indian Education schools $300 0 0

School Emergency Response to 

Violence (Project SERV)

$8,000 $2,671 $5,000

Evaluation 0 $500 $500

Other Activities

National Center for Safe Supportive

 Learning Environments $3,400 $2,500 $4,500 Other Acti viti es: 

Other data collection, dissemination,

 outreach, and assistance 1,228 504 570

 Other Acti vities: Total 4,628 3,004 5,070

_________________

NOTE: The fiscal year 2014 appropriations act authorized the Department to pool evaluation funds reserved 

under section 9601 of the ESEA and use those pooled funds to evaluate any ESEA program. The fiscal year 

2015 appropriations act provided the same authority and the Administration’s fiscal year 2016 budget would continue 

this authority. While the Department did not reserve funds from SDFSC National Activities under this authority in 

fiscal year 2014, it may do so in fiscal years 2015 and 2016.

E-15
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Safe and drug-free schools and communities national activities

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in fiscal 

year 2016 and future years, and the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program. Unless stated otherwise the source of these GPRA data is grantee annual and final 

performance reports.

LEA School Climate Transformation Grants

The Department will have baseline data in 2016 on the following measures for the 2014 cohort 

of LEA School Climate Transformation Grants:

• The number and percentage of schools that report an annual decrease in office 

disciplinary referrals.

• The number and percentage of schools that report an annual improvement in the 

attendance rate.

• The number and percentage of schools that report an annual decrease in suspensions 

and expulsions, including those related to possession or use of drugs or alcohol.

• The number and percentage of schools annually that are implementing the multi-tiered 

behavioral framework with fidelity.

SEA School Climate Transformation Grants

The Department will have baseline data in 2015 on the following measures for the 2014 cohort 

of SEA School Climate Transformation Grants:

• The number of training and technical assistance events provided by the SEA School 

Climate Transformation Grant Program to assist LEAs in implementing a multi-tiered 

behavioral framework.

• The number and percentage of LEAs provided training or technical by the SEA School 

Climate Transformation Grant Program that report an improvement in knowledge and 

understanding of the implementation of a multi-tiered behavioral framework.

• The number and percentage of schools in LEAs provided training or technical assistance 

by the SEA School Climate Transformation Grant Program that implement a multi-tiered 

behavioral framework.

E-16
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Safe and drug-free schools and communities national activities

Project Prevent

The Department will have baseline data in 2016 on the following measures for the 2014 cohort 

of Project Prevent Grants:

• The percentage of grantees that report a measurable decrease in violent, aggressive, 

and disruptive behavior in schools served by the grant.

• The percentage of grantees that report a measurable increase in the number of students 

in schools served by the grant receiving school-based and community mental health 

services to address student needs resulting from exposure to violence.

• The percentage of grantees that report a measurable increase in the school engagement 

of students served by the grant. 

Grants to States for Emergency Management

The Department will have data in 2016 on the following measures for the 2014 cohort of Grants 

to States for Emergency Management:

• The number of LEAs with high-quality emergency operations plans (EOPs) at the start of 

the grant compared to the number of LEAs with high-quality EOPs at the end of the 

grant.

E-17
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Elementary and secondary school counseling

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title V, Part D, Subpart 2)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2016 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

Period of Fund Availability 

2015 2016 Change

$49,561 $49,561 0

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2016. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Elementary and Secondary School Counseling (ESSC) program provides grants to local 

educational agencies (LEAs) to establish or expand elementary and secondary school 

counseling programs. In awarding grants, the Department must give consideration to 

applications that demonstrate the greatest need for services, propose the most promising and 

innovative approaches, and show the greatest potential for replication and dissemination. The 

Department awards grants for up to 3 years that may not exceed $400,000 and must be used to 

supplement, not supplant, existing counseling and mental health services. The statute requires 

the Department to use the first $40 million in annual appropriations for elementary school 

counseling programs; appropriations exceeding $40 million may be used to support elementary 

or secondary school counseling programs. 

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Year (dollars in thousands)

2011...........................................................$52,395

2012.............................................................52,296

2013.............................................................49,561

2014.............................................................49,561

2015.............................................................49,561

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is requesting $49.6 million for the Elementary and Secondary School 

Counseling program for fiscal year 2016, the same as the 2015 level. Funds would provide 

continued support to local educational agencies to establish or expand elementary and 

secondary school counseling programs. 

E-18
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Elementary and secondary school counseling

The presence of counselors in schools provides benefits for both students and teachers by 

helping to create a safe school environment, improve teacher effectiveness and classroom 

management, increase academic achievement, and promote student well-being and healthy 

development. In a 2009 review of school counseling research, Whiston and Quinby found that 

students who participated in school counseling interventions tended to score on various 

outcome measures slightly above those students who did not receive interventions. These 

interventions were also shown to have a large effect in reducing student disciplinary problems, 

enhancing problem-solving skills, and increasing career knowledge. Counseling interventions 

were also found to have a small but significant impact on improving students’ academic 

achievement. However, too few students have access to these benefits. As of the 2012-2013 

school year, each school counselor was responsible for counseling, on average, 482 students; 

depending on the State, the number of students per counselor ranges from 215 to 879. 

Furthermore, the 2014 Civil Rights Data Collection reports that one in five high schools lacks a 

school counselor.

In addition, the Department recognizes the importance of and need for continued support of 

efforts to address student mental health issues and the critical role that school counselors can 

play in this area. Between 13 and 20 percent of children experience a mental disorder in a 

given year, including anxiety, depression and drug use, and the prevalence has been increasing 

over the past 20 years. Estimates in “Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General” (1999) 

show that more than 20 percent of American children and adolescents between ages 9 and 17 

experience mental health problems or addictive disorders severe enough to impair their daily 

functioning and that only 25 percent of these children receive appropriate treatment. The ESSC 

program supports projects that address these issues.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands) 

Measures 2014 2015 2016

Grant award funding (new) $14,770 $21,472 $17,352

Grant award funding (continuations) $34,295 $27,593 $31,713

Number of new awards 41 60 48

Number of continuations 95 76 101

Average grant award $361 $361 $361

Peer review of new award applications $496 $496 $496

_________________

NOTE: The fiscal year 2014 appropriations act authorized the Department to pool evaluation funds reserved 

under section 9601 of the ESEA and use those pooled funds to evaluate any ESEA program. The fiscal year 

2015 appropriations act provided the same authority and the Administration’s fiscal year 2016 budget would continue 

this authority. While the Department did not reserve funds from Elementary and Secondary School Counseling under 

this authority in fiscal year 2014, it may do so in fiscal years 2015 and 2016.

E-19
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Elementary and secondary school counseling

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data, and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in fiscal

year 2016 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program.

Goal: To increase the availability of counseling programs and services in elementary 

schools.

Objective: Support the hiring of qualified personnel to expand available counseling services for 

elementary school students.

Measure: The percentage of grantees closing the gap between their student/mental health 

professional ratios and the student/mental health professional ratios recommended by the 

statute.

Year

2010

Cohort

Target

2010

Cohort

Actual

2011 

Cohort 

Target

2011 

Cohort 

Actual

2012 

Cohort

Target

2012 

Cohort

Actual

2013 

Cohort 

Target

2013 

Cohort 

Actual

2011 100% 90%

2012 100 81 100% 84%

2013 100 90 100 88 100% 93%

2014 100 100 95 100% 77%

2015 100 100

2016 100

Additional information: Performance data for the 2011 cohort will be available later in 2015. 

This is due to the fact that the Department granted many grantees in year three of their awards 

a 1-year, no-cost extension to complete their projects.

Measure: The average number of referrals per grant site for disciplinary reasons in schools 

participating in the Elementary and Secondary School Counseling program.

Year

2010

Cohort

Target

2010

Cohort

Actual

2011 

Cohort 

Target

2011 

Cohort 

Actual

2012 

Cohort

Target

2012 

Cohort

Actual

2013 

Cohort 

Target

2013 

Cohort 

Actual

2011 1,648

2012 1,400 1,241 1,200 1,152

2013 1,117 1,328 1,037 690 1,589

2014 1,430 1,493 1,169 1,106

2015

2016

E-20
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Elementary and secondary school counseling

Additional information: Performance data are collected through annual grantee reports. The 

Department plans to establish performance targets for the 2014, 2015 and 2016 cohorts once 

grantees submit baseline data.

E-21
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Physical education program

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title V, Part D, Subpart 10)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2016 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

P2015 2016 Change

$47,000 $60,000 +$13,000

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2016. 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Physical Education Program (PEP) provides grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) 

and community-based organizations (CBOs) to pay the Federal share of the costs of initiating, 

expanding, and improving physical education (PE) programs, including after-school programs, 

for students in kindergarten through 12th grade in order to help those students make progress 

toward meeting State standards for PE. Funds may be used to provide equipment and support 

to enable students to participate actively in PE activities and for training and education for 

teachers and staff. Awards are competitive, typically run for 3 years, and the Federal share of 

the total program cost may not exceed 90 percent for the first year of the project and 75 percent 

for each subsequent year. Funds must be used to supplement, and may not supplant, other 

Federal, State, and local funding for PE activities. 

Beginning in fiscal year 2010, the Department implemented priorities and requirements to 

enhance the impact of PEP and support a broader, strategic vision for encouraging the 

development of lifelong healthy habits and improving physical and nutrition education 

programming and policies in schools and communities. These priorities require grantees to 

include a nutrition component in their projects, undertake a local needs assessment, update 

nutrition- and physical activity-related policies and link them with local wellness policies, and 

update PE and nutrition instruction curricula. These priorities also encourage grantees to take a

multi-sector, comprehensive approach by working with community partners. 

The Department further strengthened PEP in fiscal year 2013 by adding a priority for projects 

that are designed to serve students enrolled in persistently lowest-achieving schools. Given the 

high correlation between low-income schools and persistently lowest-achieving schools, the 

Department expects this priority will expand the availability of physical and nutrition education to 

low-income children, who are more likely than higher-income students to have poor health 

outcomes and face greater barriers to physical activity.

E-22
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Physical education program

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Year (dollars in thousands)

2011........................................................... $78,842

2012............................................................. 78,693

2013............................................................. 74,577

2014............................................................. 74,577

2015............................................................. 47,000

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is requesting $60 million for PEP for fiscal year 2016, an increase of 

$13 million over the 2015 level. The request would provide funding for approximately 68 new 

grants to LEAs and CBOs to help students make progress toward meeting State standards in 

PE. 

The request is informed by a significant body of evidence around the importance of and need for 

continued support of students’ access to PE, improved nutrition, and fitness, and reflects the 

Administration’s commitment to physical well-being as exemplified by the First Lady’s Let’s 

Move! Initiative. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the 

prevalence of unhealthy body weight among children has more than doubled over the past 

30 years, a major cause for concern since obese children are more likely to develop high blood 

pressure, high cholesterol, type 2 diabetes, and breathing problems. Specifically, the 

percentage of children aged 6–11 years in the United States who were obese increased from 

7 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 2012 and the percentage of adolescents aged 12–19 years 

who were obese increased from 5 percent to 21 percent over the same period. In all, more than 

one third of children and adolescents were overweight or obese in 2012.

According to the 2011-12 National Survey of Children’s Health conducted by the CDC, just over 

one-third of children ages 6-17 engaged in vigorous physical activity 3 or fewer days per week. 

This lack of physical activity could be partly a result of students’ limited opportunities to 

participate in PE in school, partly at the secondary school level. According to the CDC’s Youth 

Risk Behavior Survey, only 32 percent of students in grades 9-12 attended daily PE classes in 

2011, and, in 2013, 52 percent of high school students did not attend PE classes in an average 

school week. In addition to its important role in reducing health risks, physical activity can have 

positive implications in the classroom as well. A CDC review of research in 2010 also found 

substantial evidence that physical activity can help improve academic achievement and 

positively impact cognitive skills and academic behavior.

The Department has made significant improvements to PEP over the past 5 years aimed at 

enhancing its impact on encouraging the development of lifelong healthy habits and improving 

physical and nutrition education programming and policies in schools and communities. The 

changes the Department implemented in PEP in 2010 and 2013 have resulted in positive 

outcomes. For example, prior to the 2010 regulations, very few of the program's grantees 

worked closely with their local government on their PEP projects, whereas approximately 

85 percent of the grantees since the regulations have coordinated with local government. 

Additionally, the Department has received a positive response from grantees regarding the 

E-23
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Physical education program

nutrition requirement, with many stating that it is likely to improve the effectiveness of their 

projects. The request also recognizes that the Department receives a large number of highquality applications in each competition. In the 2013 PEP competition, the Department received 

198 high-scoring applications and only had enough funding available for new awards to fund 

60 grants.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 2015 2016

Grant award funding (new) $34,715 0 $34,072

Grant award funding (continuations) 39,767 $47,000 25,728

Peer review of new award applications 0 10 200

Evaluation 95 0 20 2

Number of new grant awards 67 0 68

Number of continuation grant awards 115 125 66

Average grant award $409 $376 $446

_________________

1 In fiscal year 2014, the Department made new awards to applicants from the fiscal year 2013 slate. 2 The fiscal year 2015 appropriations act authorized the Department to pool evaluation funds reserved under 

section 9601 of the ESEA and use those pooled funds to evaluate any ESEA program. The Administration’s fiscal 

year 2016 budget would continue this authority. Some or all of the funds that may be reserved from the Physical 

Education Program under section 9601 may be used under the ESEA pooled evaluation authority in fiscal years 2015 

and 2016. 

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in 

FY 2016 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program. 

In 2010, as part of a multi-agency effort to improve the effectiveness of programs supporting 

child health and fitness, the Department reviewed the performance measures for this program

and published revised performance measures in the Notice Inviting Applications for fiscal 

year 2010. These measures are: (1) the percentage of students served by the grant who 

engage in at least 60 minutes of daily physical activity; (2) the percentage of students served by 

the grant who achieve age-appropriate cardiovascular fitness levels; (3) the percentage of 

students served by the grant who consume fruit two or more times per day and vegetables three 

or more times per day; and (4) the cost per student who engages in at least 60 minutes of daily 

physical activity. 

E-24
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Physical education program

Along with the changes to PEP implemented in the fiscal year 2013 competition, the 

Department revised one of the measures developed in 2010. The new measure is replacing 

measure (2), age-appropriate cardiovascular fitness level, with a more comprehensive measure 

of fitness: The percentage of students served by the grant who meet the standard of a healthy 

fitness zone as established by the assessment for the Presidential Youth Fitness Program in at 

least five of the six fitness areas of that assessment. The Department will have baseline and 

year 1 data for this measure in early 2015. 

Goal: To promote physical activity and healthy lifestyles for students.

Objective: Support the implementation of effective physical education programs and 

strategies.

Measure: The percentage of students served by the grant who engage in at least 60 minutes

of daily physical activity.

Year

2010

Cohort

Target

2010

Cohort

Actual

2011

Cohort 

Target

2011

Cohort

Actual

2012

Cohort

Target

2012

Cohort 

Actual

2013

Cohort

Target

2013

Cohort 

Actual

2011 65% 44%

2012 68 46 30%

2013 69% 42 34 31%

2014 45% 35% 39 42

2015 38 45%

2016 49

Measure: The percentage of students served by the grant who achieve age-appropriate

cardiovascular fitness levels.

Year

2010

Cohort

Target

2010

Cohort

Actual

2011

Cohort 

Target

2011

Cohort

Actual

2012

Cohort

Target

2012

Cohort 

Actual

2011 44% 31%

2012 55 44 56%

2013 57% 47 59

2014 49% 60% 62

2015 64

E-25
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Physical education program

Measure: The percentage of students served by the grant who consume fruit two or more 

times per day and vegetables three or more times per day.

Year

2010

Cohort

Target

2010

Cohort

Actual

2011

Cohort 

Target

2011

Cohort

Actual

2012

Cohort

Target

2012

Cohort 

Actual

2013

Cohort

Target

2013

Cohort 

Actual

2011 20% 29%

2012 41 39 25%

2013 43% 53 30 28%

2014 55% 32% 38 41

2015 35 44%

2016 48

Additional information: The Department expects to have final data for the 2010 cohort in 

early 2015. The lag in reporting data is due to the fact that, each year, the Department provides 

many grantees in year three of their awards a 1-year, no-cost extension to complete their 

projects. The Department expects to have baseline and year 1 data for the 2014 cohort in late 

2015 and additional data for the 2011 and 2013 cohorts in early 2016. The final data on the 

2012 cohort, due to no-cost extensions as noted above, will not be available until early 2017. 

Measure: The percentage of students served by the grant who meet the standard of a healthy 

fitness zone as established by the assessment for the Presidential Youth Fitness Program 

(PYFP) in at least five of the six fitness areas of that assessment.

Baseline and year 1 data for this measure are available for the 2013 cohort. Among the 

students served, 24 percent met the standards in at least five of the six fitness areas at the 

beginning of the first school year and 30 percent achieved that level of performance at the end 

of the school year. The Department expects to have baseline and year 1 data for the 2014 

cohort in late 2015 and year 2 data for the 2013 cohort in early 2016.

Efficiency Measure

The Department developed and is implementing the following efficiency measure (which 

includes both Federal and the required non-Federal expenditures). 

Measure: The cost per student who engages in at least 60 minutes of daily physical activity.

Year

2010

Cohort

Target

2010

Cohort

Actual

2011

Cohort 

Target

2011

Cohort

Actual

2012

Cohort

Target

2012

Cohort 

Actual

2013

Cohort

Target

2013

Cohort 

Actual

2011 $884

2012 880 $811

2013 $750 425 $347

2014 $400 $300 328 $488

2015 280 $450

2016 400

E-26
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Physical education program

Additional information: The calculation for this measure includes both Federal and nonFederal funding. Unlike the measures in the above tables, there is no baseline figure for each 

cohort because there are no costs to report at the start of the grant. 

Other Performance Information

The Department is conducting an evaluation of the 2010 cohort of PEP grantees. Preliminary 

findings, released in August 2012, show that the overwhelming majority of grantees from that 

first cohort under the revamp of the program formed community partnerships, which aligns with 

one of the program’s priorities. The study also shows that grantees generally use more than 

half of their first-year grant funds for equipment and personnel, with LEA grantees allocating the 

largest proportion of their first-year grant funds to equipment and CBO grantees allocating the 

largest proportion to personnel. Grantees report that some of their most common challenges 

are the lack of proper reporting by students, loss of equipment such as pedometers, and the 

failure of students to complete and return the surveys needed for the performance measures. 

The final report will be available in early 2015.

E-27
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Promise Neighborhoods

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title V, Part D, Subpart 1)

(dollars in thousands) 

FY 2016 Authorization: To be determined 1

Budget Authority:

2015 2016 Change

$56,754 $150,000 +$93,246

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. Reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2016.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Promise Neighborhoods provides competitive grants to support distressed communities in 

developing or implementing a sustainable plan for providing a continuum of effective family and 

community services, strong family supports, and comprehensive education reforms designed to 

improve the educational and life outcomes for children and youth, from birth through college. 

Beginning in fiscal year 2010, the Congress has funded Promise Neighborhoods under the 

broad authority of Title V, Part D of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Fund for the 

Improvement of Education).

The Promise Neighborhoods program is designed to improve significantly the educational and 

developmental outcomes of children and youth in our most distressed communities, and to 

transform those communities, by (1) increasing the capacity of organizations throughout an 

entire neighborhood that are focused on achieving results for children and youth; (2) building a 

continuum of academic programs and community supports with great schools at the center; 

(3) integrating programs so that solutions are implemented effectively and efficiently across 

agencies; (4) developing the local infrastructure of policies, practices, systems, and resources to 

sustain and “scale up” proven, effective solutions across the broader region, beyond the initial 

neighborhood; and (5) learning about the overall impact of the program and the relationship 

between particular strategies and student outcomes. 

Program funds support 1-year planning grants that enable grantees to conduct activities to 

facilitate the development of a feasible plan for providing a continuum of services and supports 

appropriate to the needs of children and youth within the target neighborhood. Required

activities for planning grantees include: (1) conducting a comprehensive assessment of the 

needs and assets of children and youth in the neighborhood to be served; (2) developing a plan 

to deliver a continuum of “solutions” for serving those children and youth; (3) establishing 

effective partnerships that will provide the solutions and will commit the resources needed to 

sustain and scale up what works; (4) planning, building, adapting, or expanding a longitudinal 

data system that will provide information that the grantee will use for learning, improvement, and 

accountability; and (5) participating in a “community of practice” with the other grantees.

E-28
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Promise neighborhoods

Planning grantees and other eligible entities with a feasible, high-quality plan may apply for

implementation grants. The Department awards 3-year implementation grants, with the 

possibility of extending those grants to 5 years if grantees reach their performance goals. To be 

successful, applicants must show the ability to work effectively with a variety of other 

organizations, such as nonprofit organizations, foundations, local agencies, and State agencies 

and, through those partnerships, to bring a variety of resources to the project, including 

matching funds. Required activities for implementation grantees include: (1) implementation of 

a continuum of solutions that addresses neighborhood challenges and that will improve results 

for children and youth in the neighborhood; (2) building and strengthening partnerships that will 

support the continuum of solutions and that will commit resources to sustain and scale up what 

works; (3) collecting data on indicators at least annually, and using and improving a longitudinal 

data system for learning, continuous improvement, and accountability; (4) demonstrating 

progress on goals for improving organizations’ internal systems, such as by making changes in 

policies and organizational structure and by leveraging resources to sustain and scale up what 

works; and (5) participating in a community of practice.

Eligible organizations for both types of grants are non-profit organizations, institutions of higher 

education, and Indian tribes. To be eligible, such organizations must be representative of the 

geographic area proposed to be served, currently provide at least one of the proposed solutions 

in the proposed geographic area, and operate or propose to work with at least one public 

elementary or secondary school located within the proposed geographic area. The Department 

has given priority to applicants proposing to work in rural communities and to those proposing to 

work in tribal communities. 

The Department reserves up to 5 percent of the Promise Neighborhoods appropriation for 

national leadership activities such as research, data collection and reporting, outreach, 

dissemination, technical assistance, and peer review. 

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Year (dollars in thousands)

2011...........................................................$29,940

2012.............................................................59,887

2013.............................................................56,754

2014.............................................................56,754

2015.............................................................56,764

FY 2016 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $150 million in fiscal year 2016 for Promise Neighborhoods, an 

increase of $93 million over the 2015 level. Fiscal year 2016 funds would support an estimated 

25 new planning grants and up to 25 new implementation grants as well as support for 

7 continuation awards for the 2012 cohort of implementation grantees. Funds would also be 

used to expand technical assistance to grantees. 

E-29
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Promise neighborhoods

Promise Neighborhoods supports the goal of providing all children and youth in high-need 

communities with access to a continuum of ambitious, rigorous, and comprehensive education 

reforms, effective community services, and strong systems of family and community support, 

with high-quality schools at the center of these community-based efforts. Research studies and 

data have shown that children in poverty, especially concentrated poverty, are more likely than 

their more affluent peers to face mental and physical health challenges; to have poor nutrition 

and exercise habits; to move homes and change schools; to attend high-poverty, lowperforming schools; and to live in neighborhoods where safety is a concern. These factors are 

known to lead to negative educational, social, and economic outcomes. Surmounting these 

challenges requires a concentrated and comprehensive approach that Federal, State, and local 

programs have historically not taken.

The Promise Neighborhoods program was modeled after the Harlem Children’s Zone (HCZ) 

project—a comprehensive, place-based, anti-poverty program begun in the 1990s that is 

achieving impressive results for disadvantaged children and youth living in a 97-block zone in 

New York City. Evidence suggests that HCZ’s Promise Academy schools are central to 

students achieving at significantly higher levels in reading and math than similarly situated 

students that receive HCZ’s family and community supports, but do not attend an 

Academy. The HCZ reports that its students are also showing success in their collegeacceptance and college-going rates, as well as in their ability to obtain financial aid in the form 

of full scholarships and grants. (Go to http://hcz.org/results/ for more information.)

While HCZ results reflect over 20 years of work, the first Promise Neighborhoods 

implementation grantees have been engaged in implementing their approved plans for just 

3 years. Still, early reviews are promising and grantees report early successes as they work to 

establish the necessary systems, programs, and infrastructure for wide-scale improvement in 

outcomes within their neighborhoods. Many grantees report increased efforts to (1) engage 

parents in the communities; (2) improve the health and environmental conditions for community 

members; and (3) establish programs that create a bridge between high school and 

postsecondary educational and career opportunities. As a result of these and additional efforts, 

some notable successes from the 2013-2014 school year include:

• In the Hayward, California project, the suspension rate dropped by 92 percent at one

school and four of the six schools in that neighborhood have shed the State’s school 

improvement designation. 

• For United Way of San Antonio and Bexar County, in one year, 50 percent of students 

who participated in “Kinder Prep Academy” were assessed as ready for kindergarten, 

compared to 29 percent of all kindergarten students; there was a one-year reduction in 

chronic absenteeism for 7th graders in one year (from 10.8 percent to 8.8 percent); and, 

an increase in the graduation rate since 2008 (from 46 percent to 81 percent).

• In the Indianola, Mississippi project, high school English teachers who received 25 

coaching sessions saw the scores of their students increase by 32 percent compared to 

the baseline. 

Promise Neighborhoods projects report many other promising practices that need additional 

time to demonstrate positive outcomes. For example, there are five grantees that have 

E-30
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Promise neighborhoods

integrated support for families to open college savings accounts into their continuum of services. 

Research tells us that children from low- to moderate-income families who have designated 

funds saved for school are 4.5 times more likely to graduate from college than children with no 

account.

When funding was available for new grant awards (in fiscal years 2010 through 2012), the 

demand for Promise Neighborhood grants far exceeded the available funding. The increased 

investment proposed for fiscal year 2016 would allow the Department to address some of this 

unmet need. In particular, the almost 40 communities that have received planning grants, but 

not implementation grants, represent a pool of potential high-quality candidates for 

implementation grants in fiscal year 2016. The Department also believes that a larger Federal 

investment will help attract non-Federal financial support from philanthropies, private sources, 

and other governmental entities. Additionally, to maximize benefits from existing Federal 

funding, the Department has begun work with the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) to ensure coordination within communities that intend to apply for both 

Promise Neighborhoods and HUD’s Choice Neighborhoods planning grants.

The Department would retain nearly 5 percent of the annual appropriation for national 

leadership activities, which would continue to support direct assistance and coaching for 

grantees. Other activities would include working with grantees on collection strategies for 

required indicator data and ongoing work on a database that will house and record these

performance data. Provided the data are of sufficient quality, the initial data file of indicator and 

implementation data from the 2011 and 2012 cohorts of grantees will be made available to 

researchers as a restricted-use file. 

With a portion of the national leadership funds, the Department would also continue support for 

technical assistance for the Building Neighborhood Capacity Program (BNCP). The goal of 

BNCP is to provide support for low-income neighborhoods to build the infrastructure and access 

the resources needed to improve individual and family outcomes in areas such as education, 

employment, safety, and housing. BNCP helps neighborhoods develop this community capacity 

– the knowledge, skills, relationships, interactions and organizational resources – that enables 

residents, civic leaders, the public and private sectors and local organizations to create and 

pursue results-driven neighborhood revitalization plans. Established in 2011 as part of the 

White House Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative's (NRI) partnership between the 

Departments of Education, HUD, Justice, Health and Human Services, and Treasury, BNCP 

continues to grow, catalyzing community-driven change in neighborhoods that have historically 

faced barriers to revitalization. BNCP launched in eight neighborhoods in August 2012 and is 

expanding to an additional four by January 2015.

In January 2014, the Administration launched the Promise Zones Initiative by designating five 

communities as Promise Zones. This initiative builds on the work of the NRI and Strong Cities, 

Strong Communities (SC2)1

, and is intended to lead to the revitalization of many of America’s 

1 SC2 is a Federal interagency initiative that is designed to help lay the foundation for economic recovery and 

transformation in some of the Nation’s most economically distressed cities. The following Federal agencies are 

participating in SC2: Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, Education, Labor, Transportation, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Agriculture, Justice, Health and Human Services, Small Business Administration, Treasury, 

Energy, Army Corps of Engineers, and the Corporation for National and Community Service. 

E-31

 
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Promise neighborhoods

highest-poverty communities by creating jobs, attracting private investment, increasing 

economic activity, expanding educational opportunity, and reducing violent crime. Promise 

Zones are a key strategy in the Administration’s Ladders of Opportunity initiative, which is aimed 

at giving millions of hard-working Americans in high-poverty communities a leg up into the 

middle class. The Administration will designate an additional 15 Promise Zones in fiscal 

year 2015, selecting communities that identify a set of positive outcomes for their proposed 

Zone and its residents, develop an evidence-based strategy and implementation plan, 

encourage private investment, and realign Federal, State, local, and Tribal resources to achieve 

those outcomes. The designation process ensures rural and Native American representation.

The Budget request includes tax incentives to stimulate economic activity and create jobs within 

and around Promise Zones, which also receive intensive Federal technical assistance aimed at 

breaking down regulatory barriers and using existing Federal funds in more coordinated and 

effective ways. In addition, applicants from Promise Zones will receive competitive preference 

points for other Federal discretionary grant programs that will contribute to the Promise Zone 

goal attainment. The Department developed a priority for programs and projects that support 

activities in designated Promise Zones, beginning in fiscal year 2014, and this priority will be 

used in the fiscal year 2016 Promise Neighborhoods competition.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 2015 2016

Planning Grants

Number of new awards 0 0 25

 r ants: Funding for new awards 0 0 $12,500

Implementation Grants

Number of new awards 0 0 25

 ants: Funding for new awards 0 0 $95,060

 ants: Number of continuing awards 12 12 7

 ants: Funding for continuing awards $54,301 $54,480 $37,060

National Activities

Technical assistance $1,200 $1,200 $2,980

 i viti es: BNCP 0 0 $500

 i viti es: Data and evaluation assistance $1,253 $1,074 $1,200

 ti viti es: Peer review of new award applications 0 0 $700

_________________

NOTE: The fiscal year 2014 appropriations act authorized the Department to pool evaluation funds reserved 

under section 9601 of the ESEA and use those pooled funds to evaluate any ESEA program. The fiscal year 

2015 appropriations act provided the same authority and the Administration’s fiscal year 2016 budget would continue 

this authority. While the Department did not reserve funds from Promise Neighborhoods under this authority in fiscal 

year 2014, it may do so in fiscal years 2015 and 2016.

E-32
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Promise neighborhoods

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in 

FY 2016 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

The Department established the following performance measure for planning grantees: the 

percentage of planning grantees that produce a high-quality plan as measured by their receiving 

at least 90 of 100 possible points in the subsequent competition for an implementation grant. 

Four of the 21 fiscal year 2010 planning grantees, or 19 percent, received a score of 90 points 

or more in the final review of the fiscal year 2011 implementation competition. Fiscal year 2011 

planning grantees were more successful, with 7 of the 15 planning grantees, or 47 percent, 

receiving a score of 90 points or more in the final review of the fiscal year 2012 implementation 

competition. Overall, of the 35 applicants that scored 90 points or better in the 2011 and 2012 

implementation competitions, 71 percent were planning grantees. Since a competition has not 

been held since fiscal year 2012, no new data are available.

The Department established 15 performance measures for implementation grantees through the 

notice inviting applications. Data from the first cohort of implementation grantees became 

available in May 2013, but inconsistent data collection practices among the grantees limited the 

validity and reliability of these data. The Department’s release of a guidance document for data 

collection led to much-improved data for year 2 of the first cohort of grantees. The second 

cohort of implementation grantees has also reported baseline data following their first year of 

project implementation. Within the next 2 years, most grantees will be able to provide 

comparable data on the measures for student proficiency on State assessments in 

reading/language arts and mathematics; average daily attendance; and chronic absenteeism.

Through its data and evaluation assistance contract, the Department will continue providing 

assistance to grantees on data collection and reporting, as well as on the production of a 

restricted-use data file, to ensure consistency across grantees in how they collect and report 

data. Assistance includes refining and improving grantee performance measures, data 

collection strategies, data analyses, and meeting reporting requirements. Beginning in 2014, all 

implementation grantees are using the Promise Neighborhoods Scorecard to report their data 

and information on the solutions they are implementing. By the end of 2015, all grantees will 

also have in place data plans to address critical issues like parental consent and Institutional 

Review Boards.

Other Performance Information

Consistent with the Administration’s support for place-based strategies, the Department 

contributed fiscal year 2012 funds to an evaluation of SC2. The evaluation examined the impact 

of SC2 on the six pilot cities in the first 18 months of implementation. The evaluation found that 

E-33
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Promise neighborhoods

the SC2 team approach can be an effective way to address the priorities of cities facing 

significant economic challenges and identified a number of factors affecting the success of SC2 

teams. Additionally, the evaluators identified a number of potential improvements to the 

approach for three stages of the engagement: before implementation of SC2 team activities, 

during implementation, and as implementation nears completion. A final report is available at 

http://www.huduser.org/portal/sc2/FinalReport.html. 

E-34