Department of Education

SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request

CONTENTS

Page

Summary of request:

Appropriations Language ........................................................................................................ F-1

Appropriation Adjustments and Transfers ............................................................................... F-2

Summary of Changes ............................................................................................................. F-3

Authorizing Legislation............................................................................................................ F-5

Appropriations History............................................................................................................. F-7

Significant Items in FY 2013 Appropriations Reports............................................................... F-8

Summary of request................................................................................................................ F-9

Activities:

Promise neighborhoods ..................................................................................................... F-12

Successful, safe, and healthy students .............................................................................. F-18

Safe and drug-free schools and communities national activities......................................... F-26

Elementary and secondary school counseling.................................................................... F-37

Physical education program ............................................................................................... F-41

21st Century community learning centers ........................................................................... F-47

State table*

*State tables reflecting final 2013 allocations and 2014 estimates will be posted on the Department’s Web page at: 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/index.html#update
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

F-1

Appropriations Language

NOTE

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

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

enacted, a budget request for these programs will be proposed.
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

F-2

Appropriation Adjustments and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2012 2013 2014

Discretionary authority:

Discretionar y authority: Appropriation .......................................................... $256,237 $255,753 $1,831,673

Discretionar y authority: Across-the-board reduction (P.L.112-74) ................ -484 0 0

Discretionar y authority: Across-the-board increase (P.L.112-175) ............... 0 1,565 0

Total, adjusted discretionary appropriation............ 255,753 257,318 1,831,673

Comparative transfer from

Education Improvement Programs for:

21st Century community learning centers 1,151,673 1,151,673 0

Total, comparable budget authority................ 1,407,426 1,407,426 1,831,673

Note: Amounts for transferred programs exclude the 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided by

P.L. 112-175. The comparable total 0.612 percent across-the-board increase for the account is $8,613 thousand.
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

F-3

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2012................................................................................................. $1,407,426

2014................................................................................................. 1,831,673

Net change ............................................................... +424,247

Increases: 2012 base

Change 

from base

Program:

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. $59,887 +$240,113

Program Increase to initiate the Successful, Safe, and Healthy 

Students program to support student achievement to 

high standards and to help ensure that students are 

mentally and physically healthy and ready to learn by 

strengthening efforts to improve school climate and 

improve students’ safety and physical and mental health 

and well-being. 0 +280,000

Program Increase for 21st Century Community Learning Centers to 

enable States and local entities to provide the additional 

time, support, and enrichment activities needed to 

improve student achievement, including projects that 

support expanding learning time by significantly 

increasing the number of hours in a regular school 

schedule and by comprehensively redesigning the school 

schedule for all students in a school. 1,151,673 +100,000

Subtotal, increases

+620,113
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

F-4

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

Decreases: 2012 base

Change 

from base

Program:

Program Elimination of funds for Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 

Communities National Activities because the 

Administration’s reauthorization proposal would 

consolidate this program into the proposed Successful, 

Safe, and Healthy Students program.

$64,877 -$64,877

Program Elimination of funds for Elementary and Secondary 

School Counseling because the Administration’s 

reauthorization proposal would consolidate this program 

into the proposed Successful, Safe, and Healthy 

Students program.

52,296 -52,296

Program Elimination of funds for the Physical Education program 

because the Administration’s reauthorization proposal 

would consolidate this program into the proposed 

Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students program. 78,693 -78,693

Subtotal, decreases -195,866

Net change +424,247
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

F-5

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2013

Authorized

Footnote

2013

Estimate

2014

Authorized

footnote

2014

Request

Promise neighborhoods (ESEA-V-D, Subpart 1) 01 $59,887 To be determined1 $300,000

Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students (proposed 

legislation) 0 0 To be determined 280,000

Safe and drug-free schools and communities national 

activities (ESEA IV-A, Subpart 2, Sections 4121 and 4122) 0

2, 3

64,877 0

2

0

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

Subpart 2) 0

2

52,296 0

2

0

Physical education program (ESEA-V-D, Subpart 10) 0278,693 0

2

0

21st century community learning centers (ESEA-IV-B) 01 1,151,673 To be determined1 1,251,673

Unfunded authorizations

Unfunded authorizati ons:

Safe and drug-free schools and communities State grants 

(ESEA IV-A, Subpart 1) 0

4

0 Indefinite40 Unfunded authorizati ons: 

Alcohol abuse reduction (ESEA section 4129) 04

0 Indefinite40 Unfunded authorizati ons: 

Mentoring program (ESEA section 4130) 04

0 Indefinite40 Unfunded authorizati ons: 

Character education (ESEA V-D, Subpart 3) 04

0 0

4

0 Unfunded authorizati ons: 

Grants directed at preventing and reducing alcohol abuse at 

institutions of higher education (Section 2(e)(2) of P.L. 109-

422) 05 0 05 0

Total definite authorization 0 0

Total appropriation 1,407,426 1,831,673

Portion of the request subject to reauthorization 1,831,673

Total appropriation including 0.612 percent ATB increase 1,416,039
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Authorizing Legislation—continued

F-6

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. Reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2014. 2 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. The program is proposed for consolidation in FY 2014 under new legislation. 3 Funds appropriated for Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities National Programs in fiscal year 2013 may not be increased above the amount 

appropriated in fiscal year 2012 unless the amount appropriated for Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants in fiscal year 2013 is at least 

10 percent greater than the amount appropriated in 2012. 4 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. The Administration is not seeking reauthorizing legislation. 5 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2011. The Administration is not seeking reauthorizing legislation.
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

F-7

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget 

Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance

Footnote Senate 

Allowance

Footnote

Appropriation

Footnote

2004 $756,200 $825,068 $818,547 $855,775

(2004 Advance for 2005) (330,000) (330,000)

2005 838,897 801,369 891,460 860,771

2006 396,767 763,870 697,300 729,517

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

5

288,465

2012 1,781,132 65,000

6

270,463

6

255,753

2013 1,447,539 108,487

7

259,589

7

257,318

8

2014 1,831,673

_________________

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 the Senate allowance reflects Committee action only. 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 amount shown includes the 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided by P.L. 112-175, in effect 

through March 27, 2013.
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

F-8

Significant Items in FY 2013 Appropriations Reports

21st Century Community Learning Centers

Senate: Report 112-176. The Committee directs the Department to refrain from giving 

priority to, showing preference for, or providing direction about whether 

communities should use these funds for afterschool, before school, summer 

school, or expanded school day programs, unless specifically requested by State 

educational agencies (SEAs) or local educational agencies (LEAs).

Response: The Department agrees that State and local grantees have discretion in meeting 

program requirements and in using program funds to provide additional time, 

support, and enrichment activities needed to improve student achievement.
 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2011 INITIAL REQUEST TO OMB

Summary of request

Click here for accessible version 

(in thousands of dollars) 2014

Category 2012 2013 President's

Account, Program and Activity Code Appropriation Appropriation Budget Amount Percent

Supporting Student Success

 1. Promise Neighborhoods (ESEA V-D, subpart 1) D 59,887 59,887 300,000 240,113 400.943%

 2. Successful, safe, and healthy students:

(a) Successful, safe, and healthy students (proposed legislation) D 0 0 280,000 280,000 ---

(b) Safe and drug-free schools and communities national activities

(ESEA IV-A, Subpart 2, sections 4121 and 4122) D 64,877 64,877 0 (64,877) -100.000%

(c) Elementary and secondary school counseling (ESEA V-D, subpart 2) D 52,296 52,296 0 (52,296) -100.000%

(d) Physical education program (ESEA V-D, subpart 10) D 78,693 78,693 0 (78,693) -100.000%

Subtotal 195,866 195,866 280,000 84,134 42.955%

 3. 21st century community learning centers (ESEA IV-B) D 1,151,673 1,151,673 1,251,673 100,000 8.683%

Total D 1,407,426 1,407,426 1,831,673 424,247 30.143%

Across-the-board 0.612% increase applied to discretionary appropriation, provided in P.L. 112-175. 8,613

 Total 1,407,426 1,416,039 1,831,673 424,247 30.143%

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

- FY 2013 discretionary appropriation amounts are based on P.L. 112-175, the Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2013, that provided appropriations through March 27, 2013. FY 2013 mandatory amounts are 

either specifically authorized levels, or are based on FY 2013 President's Budget Policy, updated for more recent estimates of mandatory costs, or FY 2014 President's Budget Policy, as applicable.

- Programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act for which funds are requested or that are proposed for consolidation in FY 2014 are proposed under new authorizing legislation. 

- Multiple programs affected by the proposed ESEA reauthorization have been renamed and moved among accounts, some of which also have been renamed. 

- Account totals and programs shown within accounts in FY 2012 and FY 2013 have been adjusted for comparability with the FY 2014 President's Budget.

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

2014 President's Budget 

Compared to 2012 Appropriation

F-9
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

F-10

Summary of Request

The programs in the Supporting Student Success account assist States, local educational 

agencies, schools, and other organizations in developing and implementing programs and 

activities that increase the extent to which students are physically and emotionally safe and 

healthy; students have regular access to adults, either formally or informally, who care about 

their success and have opportunities to engage with them; schools are environments where 

students have the opportunity to access comprehensive supports along the birth-throughcollege-and-to-career continuum that promote social and emotional development and 

responsible citizenship; and students and teachers have the time and supports they need to 

focus on teaching and learning. 

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 2014 under reauthorized 

legislation, and the request is based on the Administration’s reauthorization proposal. Funding 

in the account is requested for the following three programs:

• $300 million for the Promise Neighborhoods initiative, a $240 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 designed to combat the effects of poverty and 

improve educational and life outcomes for children and youth. This investment would 

also contribute to the Administration’s Promise Zones, a key strategy in the new Ladders 

of Opportunity initiative, which is aimed at giving hard-working Americans in high-poverty 

communities a leg up into the middle class.

• $280 million for a new Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students program that would 

support student achievement to high standards and help ensure that students are safe, 

and mentally and physically healthy and ready to learn, by strengthening efforts to: 

establish school conditions that support learning; reduce or prevent drug use, violence, 

bullying, and harassment, and improve school safety; improve students’ physical health 

and well-being through the use of, or provision of access to, comprehensive services 

that improve student nutrition, physical activity, and fitness; and improve student’s 

mental health and well-being through the use of, or provision of access to, 

comprehensive services, such as counseling, health, and mental health services, social 

services, and innovative family engagement programs or supports. Within the 

$280 million requested, $112 million would be used to carry out several new school 

safety initiatives that are included in Now Is The Time, the President’s plan to protect our 

children and our communities by reducing gun violence, including efforts to improve 

school emergency plans, create positive school climates, and counter the effects of 

pervasive violence on students.

• $1.3 billion for 21st Century Community Learning Centers to support State and local 

efforts to implement in-school and out-of-school strategies for providing students (and, 

where appropriate, teachers and family members), particularly those in high-need 

schools, the additional time, support, and enrichment activities needed to improve 

student achievement. The Administration’s reauthorization proposal would continue to
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

F-11

Summary of Request

allow funds to be used for before- and after-school programs, summer enrichment 

programs, and summer school programs, and would also permit States and eligible local 

entities to use funds to support expanded-learning-time programs as well as full-service 

community schools.

No funds are requested in the fiscal year 2014 budget for the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 

Communities National Activities, Elementary and Secondary School Counseling, and Physical 

Education programs, because they would be subsumed under the proposed Successful, Safe, 

and Healthy Students program, which constitutes a major consolidation of these three existing 

programs, and would provide increased flexibility to States and districts in designing strategies 

that best address the needs of their students, schools, and communities. 
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

F-12

Activities:

Promise neighborhoods

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

(dollars in thousands) 

FY 2014 Authorization: To be determined 1

Budget Authority:

2012 2013 2014

Change 

from 2012

$59,887 $59,8872 $300,000 +$240,113

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. Reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2014. 2 Excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Promise Neighborhoods provides competitive grants to support distressed communities in 

developing or implementing a feasible, sustainable plan for provision of a continuum of effective 

family and community services, strong family supports, and ambitious, 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 
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Promise neighborhoods

F-13

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. 

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 that are 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:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2009.........................................................................0

2010..............................................................$10,000

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

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

2013................................................................59,8871

_________________

1 Excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $300 million in fiscal year 2014 for Promise Neighborhoods, an 

increase of $240.1 million over the fiscal year 2012 level. Fiscal year 2014 funds would support 

a significantly increased investment in new planning grants and implementation grants as well 
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Promise neighborhoods

F-14

as in technical assistance and support for implementation grant continuation awards. The 

requested increase reflects the priority that the Administration continues to place on this key 

initiative; the program is a central part of the President’s effort to create ladders of opportunity 

across the country. The 2014 request for Promise Neighborhoods would be implemented under 

the Administration’s reauthorization proposal for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

(ESEA) of 1965, which would include a specific authorization for the program based closely on 

current program requirements. 

Promise Neighborhoods supports the goal of all children and youth having access to the 

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 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, low-performing schools; and to live in neighborhoods where safety is a 

concern. These are factors known to lead to negative behaviors and, by themselves, provide 

additional challenges for children in attaining a high-quality education. Surmounting these 

challenges requires a more concentrated and comprehensive approach than Federal, State, 

and local programs have historically 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 who live in a 97-block zone in 

New York City. Evidence suggests that students in HCZ schools are achieving at significantly 

higher levels in reading and math than other, similarly situated students. Harvard University 

economics professor Roland Fryer, Jr. and Harvard graduate student Will Dobbie’s 2009 

assessment found that the HCZ produced significant gains for the students in the zone, stating 

that the “HCZ is enormously successful at boosting achievement in math and ELA

[English/Language Arts] in elementary school and math in middle school.”

1

 The HCZ reports 

that its students are also showing success in their college-acceptance and college-going rates, 

as well as in their ability to obtain financial aid in the form of full scholarships and grants. 

The demand for Promise Neighborhood grants far exceeded the available funding in fiscal years 

2010 through 2012, and the increased investment proposed for fiscal year 2014 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 highquality candidates for implementation grants in fiscal year 2014. The Department will continue 

to maintain a high bar for grant awards, ensuring that applicants and their communities are able 

to demonstrate their capacity to plan and implement comprehensive high-quality education 

reforms and family and community supports for all children and youth in an identified geographic 

region, improve academic outcomes, and sustain their efforts and partnerships. The 

Department also believes that a larger Federal investment will help attract additional financial 

 1 Will Dobbie and Roland G. Fryer, Jr., “Are High-Quality Schools Enough to Close the Achievement Gap? 

Evidence from a Bold Social Experiment in Harlem” (working paper, National Bureau of Economic Research, 

Cambridge, Massachusetts, April 2009).
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Promise neighborhoods

F-15

support from non-Federal sources like philanthropies, private sources, and other governmental 

entities. Additionally, to promote interagency coordination and maximum benefits from existing 

Federal funding, the Department would reserve a portion of 2014 funds for joint planning grants 

with HUD to communities that intend to apply for both Promise Neighborhoods and HUD’s 

Choice Neighborhoods implementation grants.

The Administration’s reauthorization proposal would retain the 5 percent reservation for national 

leadership activities, which would allow the Department to continue direct assistance and 

coaching for grantees. Other activities would include work with grantees on collection strategies 

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

performance data. The initial restricted-use data file of indicator and implementation data from 

grantees will be made available to researchers in spring 2014. The Department would also use 

Promise Neighborhoods national leadership activities funding to continue support for technical 

assistance for the Building Neighborhood Capacity Program (BNCP). The BNCP is part of the 

Administration’s Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative (NRI) and may provide grantees and 

interested communities with an additional approach to technical assistance. The NRI—

comprised of representatives from the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Health 

and Human Services, Justice, Treasury, and Education—is executing the Administration’s 

place-based strategy2 for providing local communities with the tools they need to change 

neighborhoods of concentrated poverty into neighborhoods of opportunity. 

The Department will convene an advisory panel in 2013 to explore the feasibility of beginning an 

impact evaluation, focusing on one or more components of the 2011 and 2012 implementation 

grantees’ programs. Depending on the feasibility, fiscal year 2014 funds could provide support

for this evaluation and an implementation study of the program.

The 2014 request also would expand the contribution of the Promise Neighborhoods program to 

President Obama’s Promise Zones, which would re-vitalize many of America’s 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 new 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. 

Key rungs on the Ladders of Opportunity include raising the minimum wage, increasing access 

to high-quality preschool, promoting fatherhood and marriage, and redesigning America’s high 

schools.

Communities would compete to earn a Promise Zone designation by identifying a set of positive 

outcomes for their proposed Zone and its residents, developing an evidence-based strategy and 

implementation plan, encouraging private investment, and realigning Federal, State, local, and 

Tribal resources to achieve those outcomes. The process would ensure rural and Native 

American representation among the designated Promise Zones. The Budget includes tax 

incentives to stimulate economic activity and create jobs within and around Promise Zones. 

 2 See also Memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Developing Place-Based Policies 

for the FY 2011 Budget, August 11, 2009, available online at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/memoranda_fy2009/m09-28.pdf
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Promise neighborhoods

F-16

Agencies would also provide intensive technical assistance aimed at breaking down regulatory 

barriers, and using existing Federal funds in a more coordinated and effective way. In addition, 

applicants from Promise Zones would receive additional points for competitive Federal grants 

that would directly contribute to accomplishing the goals in the community’s strategic plan. 

Promise Zones would align the work of multiple Federal programs in communities that have 

both substantial needs and a strong plan to address them.

Promise Zones would build on the lessons learned from existing place-based programs like 

Promise Neighborhoods, the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Choice 

Neighborhoods program, and the Department of Justice’s Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation 

program. Other Federal agencies that will be aligning their work in support of local Promise 

Zone partners would include the Departments of Commerce, Health and Human Services, and 

Agriculture. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2012 2013 2014

Planning Grants

Number of new awards 10 0 30

Funding for new awards $4,798 0 $15,000

Implementation Grants

Number of new awards 7 0 35

Funding for new awards $29,712 0 $209,332

Number of continuing awards 5 12 12

Funding for continuing awards $22,433 $57,609 $61,001

National Activities

Technical assistance $710 $722 $3,550

BNCP $455 $500 $2,000

Data and evaluation assistance $1,211 $1,056 $1,290

Evaluation $25 0 $6,500

Peer review of new award applications $543 0 $1,327

_________________

NOTE: 2013 excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

The Department has 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 percent 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 percent or more in the final review of the fiscal year 2011 implementation competition. Fiscal 
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Promise neighborhoods

F-17

year 2011 planning grantees were more successful, with 7 of the 15 planning grantees, or 

47 percent, receiving a score of 90 percent of more in the final review of the fiscal year 2012 

implementation competition.

The Department has established the following performance measure for implementation 

grantees: the percentage of implementation grantees that attain or exceed the annual goals 

that they establish and that are approved by the Department for (a) project indicators; 

(b) improving systems; and (c) leveraging resources. Data from the first cohort of 

implementation grantees will be available in May 2013.

Through the data and evaluation assistance contract, the Department will provide 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 will 

include refining and improving grantee performance measures, data collection strategies, data 

analyses, and meeting reporting requirements.

Other Performance Information

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

contributed fiscal year 2012 funds to an evaluation of the Strong Cities, Strong Communities 

Initiative (SC2). SC2 is a Federal interagency initiative3 that is designed to help lay the 

foundation for economic recovery and transformation in some of the Nation’s most economically 

distressed cities. The evaluation will examine the impact of SC2 on the 6 pilot cities.

 3 The following Federal agencies are participating in the SC2 Initiative: 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. 
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

F-18

Successful, safe, and healthy students

(Proposed legislation)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: To be determined

Budget Authority: 

2012 2013 2014

Change 

from 2012

0 0 $280,000 +$280,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Administration’s reauthorization proposal for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

(ESEA) would create a new Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students (SSHS) program that

would award competitive grants to increase the capacity of State educational agencies (SEAs), 

high-need local educational agencies (LEAs), and their partners to develop and implement 

programs and activities that improve conditions for learning so that students are safe, healthy, 

and successful. Programs and activities supported by this program would include those that 

reduce or prevent drug use, alcohol use, bullying, harassment, or violence, including dating 

violence, and promote and support the safety and physical and mental well-being of students.

The new program would make competitive SSHS State and Local Grants to SEAs, high-need 

LEAs, and their partners for development and implementation of comprehensive strategies 

designed to improve conditions for learning and student outcomes for students in turnaround or 

high-poverty schools or schools with demonstrated needs. Research studies and data have 

shown that children in poverty are more likely than their more affluent peers to face mental 

health and physical health challenges; to have poor nutrition and exercise habits; to attend highpoverty, low-performing schools; and to live in neighborhoods where safety is a concern. The 

SSHS State and Local Grants program would help schools address poverty-related barriers and 

create a school culture where all students can succeed. Activities could include those aimed at 

preventing and reducing substance use, violence, harassment or bullying; promoting student 

mental, behavioral, and emotional health; strengthening family and student engagement in 

school; reducing expulsions and out-of-school suspensions; and implementing programs 

designed to improve students’ physical health and well-being, including their physical activity, 

nutrition, fitness, and safety.

Grantees would be required to develop, adapt, or adopt and implement a State- or district-wide 

school climate measurement system that would consist of incident data (such as data on 

suspensions and expulsions) and information on the conditions for learning collected through a 

comprehensive needs assessment (which may include surveys) of students, staff, and families. 

The school climate measurement system would be used to identify school and student needs

and inform the implementation of activities that meet those needs. Additionally, this information 
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Successful, safe, and healthy students

F-19

would be aggregated at the school-building level and reported to the public, including parents, in 

a timely and accessible manner. 

States would be permitted to reserve a portion of their funds for State activities and would be 

required to subgrant the remainder of their grant funds to high-need LEAs and their partners. 

Priority for grants and subgrants would be provided to (1) grantees that would focus the use of 

funds on turnaround or high-poverty schools or on schools with the greatest needs as identified 

by the school climate measurement system, (2) partnerships between LEAs and other eligible 

entities, and (3) applicants proposing a comprehensive strategy to ensure that schools provide 

appropriate conditions for learning.

The Department would set aside up to 1 percent of SSHS funds for programs for Indian youth 

administered by the Department of the Interior and up to 1 percent for the Outlying Areas. The 

Secretary would be authorized to reserve funds for National Activities to carry out national 

leadership activities that support safe, healthy, and drug-free students, including research and 

development, dissemination and outreach, and technical assistance, as well as for activities to 

help ensure that college campuses are safe and healthy environments. Up to 1.5 percent of 

appropriations would be used for program evaluation.

The Department also would be authorized to fund continuation awards for grants and contracts 

made under the following antecedent programs: Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities 

National Programs; Elementary and Secondary School Counseling; and Physical Education. 

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $280 million in 2014 for the proposed Successful, Safe, and 

Healthy Students (SSHS) program. This request proposes to consolidate several existing, 

narrowly targeted programs into a broader, more flexible authority that would increase the 

capacity of States, high-need districts, and their partners to provide the resources and supports 

necessary to help students overcome poverty-related barriers and ensure that students are 

safe, healthy, and successful. The program would use data on school climate to drive 

resources where they are most needed and in a manner that will address local needs more 

effectively than current programs, encouraging continuous improvement, and generating 

information on what works. A key priority for 2014 is proposed funding, under the National 

Activities portion of the SSHS authority, for school safety activities included in Now is the Time, 

the President’s plan to protect our children and our communities by reducing gun violence. 

The request includes $75 million for the competitive SSHS State and Local Grants program that 

would target funds to creating positive learning environments that meet the needs of students 

living in poverty. Among the factors the Department would give priority to are applications from 

SEAs and LEAs for comprehensive strategies that are designed to improve conditions for 

learning and to meet the needs of students (1) from low-income families; (2) in turnaround 

schools; and (3) in schools identified as high-need based on school climate data. Such 

strategies could include provision of mental health services and social and emotional supports, 

as well as developing the capacity for school leaders and teachers to work with at-risk students 

school-wide. School-based programs focused on social and emotional learning (SEL) have 
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Successful, safe, and healthy students

F-20

shown positive impacts on a wide range of student outcomes, including social and emotional 

skills, social behaviors, attitudes toward self and others, and academic performance. A review 

of these programs found that the average student (i.e., a student at the 50th percentile) gained 

11 percentile points on standardized tests as a result of participating in a SEL program and,

furthermore, that the impact of SEL programs, on average, was similar to the impact often found 

for academic interventions.

The reauthorized National Activities program would permit the Department to support activities 

that complement the SSHS State and Local Grants program, including those that help promote 

and scale up strategies for successful, safe, and healthy students in LEAs that are not grantees 

or subgrantees under the SSHS State and Local Grants program.

Both the SSHS State and Local Grants and the National Activities portion of the proposed 

Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students program recognize the need for improving school 

culture and student/faculty communication as a means to prevent school violence, including 

school shootings, consistent with one of 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 supports the notion that keeping students safe in school requires a positive 

school climate in which students and staff are supported, 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. 

In January of 2013, the President released his plan to reduce gun violence, make schools safer,

and increase access to mental health services. The 2014 request supports that plan’s commonsense proposals designed to improve school emergency plans, create positive school climates, 

and counter the effects of pervasive violence on students. In particular, National Activities funds 

would support the following activities:

• $30 million for one-time grants to SEAs to help their LEAs develop, implement, and 

improve their emergency management plans, to strengthen their readiness and capacity 

to prevent or mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from emergencies and crisis 

events. The goal of these funds and related Administration efforts is to incentivize 

schools to have in place a high-quality emergency management plan that can be 

implemented with confidence and fidelity. According to a 2007 GAO report entitled 

“Emergency Management,” an estimated 95 percent of all LEAs have written emergency

management plans, but the quality and implementation vary widely. The GAO estimated 

that over one-quarter of LEAs had never trained with any first responders and over twothirds of LEAs did not regularly train with community partners on how to implement their 

school district emergency management plans. In May 2013, the Departments of 

Education, Justice, and Health and Human Services will release a model emergency 

management plan for schools. The $30 million request would help SEAs, LEAs, and 

schools put these plans and practices into place. Funds would be allocated by formula 

based on State shares of school-aged (5- to 17-year-old) population, with a small State 

minimum and set-asides for the Outlying Areas and the Bureau of Indian Education 

(BIE) schools. The budget request also includes $2 million for related technical 
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Successful, safe, and healthy students

F-21

assistance to schools and institutions of higher education to strengthen their emergency 

planning efforts through the Department’s Readiness and Emergency Management for 

Schools technical assistance center.

• $50 million for School Climate Transformation Grants and related technical assistance to 

help 8,000 schools train their teachers and other school staff to implement evidencebased strategies to improve school climate. The School Climate Transformation Grants 

initiative builds on the development and testing of evidence-based multi-tiered 

decisionmaking frameworks, such as Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports 

(PBIS), which have been supported with funds from the Department’s Office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services. These funds would enable SEAs and LEAs to 

develop and adopt, or expand to more schools, a multi-tiered decisionmaking 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. A key aspect of this multi-tiered approach is that it provides differing levels of 

support and interventions to students based on their needs.

Research shows that when these frameworks are implemented with fidelity, schools can 

experience reductions in problem behavior (as measured by office discipline referrals 

and suspension), decreased bullying and peer victimization, improved organizational 

health and perception of school as a safe setting, and increased academic performance 

in reading and math. There is also evidence that: (1) youth risk factors are reduced in 

schools where these frameworks are implemented well; and (2) reduced risk factors are 

correlated with reduced drug use, among other improved behaviors.

Funds would be used to implement data tracking systems; train the 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. The Department would give priority in making awards to LEAs that enroll 

large concentrations of students from low-income families, though the expected number 

of awards will allow the grants to serve all types of communities. The School Climate 

Transformation Grants will combine with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Services Administration (SAMHSA) mental health first aid grants and the Department of 

Justice (DOJ) Juvenile Justice and Education Collaboration Assistance (JJECA) grants

to make competitive grants to LEAs. Under this interagency initiative, LEAs will be able 

to apply for assistance across a continuum of available funding sources for addressing 

school safety and climate. In addition to implementing multi-tiered behavioral 

frameworks in schools, grantees will collaborate with juvenile justice and law 

enforcement entities to reduce unnecessarily harsh discipline actions including arrests 

and juvenile justice system involvement, and train school staff in mental health first aid to 

help adults detect and respond to mental illness in children and connect them to 

treatment. These grants will also be coordinated with SAMHSA’s Project AWARE 

grants, which will require participating schools to implement a multi-tiered behavioral 

framework. The agencies will work together to develop a common application as well as 

common program requirements and outcome measures.
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Successful, safe, and healthy students

F-22

The School Climate Transformation Grants will also include grants to SEAs to develop or 

enhance statewide systems of support and provision of technical assistance for LEAs 

implementing a multi-tiered behavioral framework. These grants will be competed in 

conjunction with SAMHSA’s Project AWARE grants and a similar State-level component 

of DOJ’s JJECA grants to encourage cross-agency collaboration in addressing school 

climate, school safety, and mental health needs.

• $25 million for Project Prevent grants to LEAs to help schools in communities with 

pervasive violence break the cycle of violence. Exposure to violence affects almost two 

out of every three children. And 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 would address 

this problem by supporting the deployment of resources and technical assistance 

through local projects that would offer students (1) mental health services for trauma or 

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

skills) to help address the effects of violence; and (3) promote conflict resolution and 

other school-based strategies to prevent future violence.

• $5 million for Project SERV (School Emergency Response to Violence) to replenish a 

longstanding reserve fund that supports the provision of education-related services to 

LEAs and to institutions of higher education (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. In the hoped-for event that 

there are no school- or college-related crises, the unobligated funds would be carried 

over into the next fiscal year. 

• $9.2 million for other activities that promote safe and healthy students, including the 

following:

o $4 million to design, pilot test, and validate a high-quality model school climate 

survey that SEAs, LEAs, or schools could use to assess the conditions for 

learning; gain an understanding of issues such as youth engagement, bullying, 

and school violence; and guide the selection and implementation of appropriate 

programs and interventions for improvement.

o $1 million to provide technical assistance to SEAs and LEAs interested in using 

the model survey.

o $2 million to renew the School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), which

collects a set of current, nationally representative data on a variety of school 

crime and safety topics and helps inform future budget and policy decisions to 

address identified problems.
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Successful, safe, and healthy students

F-23

o $1.5 million to continue support for the National Center on Safe Supportive 

Learning Environments to provide 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. The Center also supports the 

collection and dissemination of information and best practices on improving 

school climate.

o $0.7 million for other data collection, dissemination, outreach, and technical 

assistance activities that promote safe and healthy students.

The fiscal year 2014 request for Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students also would provide:

approximately $80.9 million for continuation awards for projects originally funded under 

Elementary and Secondary School Counseling ($37.7 million), and Physical Education 

programs ($43.2 million); $2.0 million for set-asides for Department of the Interior/Bureau of 

Indian Education schools and the Outlying Areas; and $1 million for program evaluation.

If the Congress does not reauthorize the ESEA prior to enactment of the fiscal year 2014 

appropriations, the Administration will request authority for activities consistent with those 

proposed under this request through appropriations language.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2014 Footnote

State and Local Grants

 Grant award funds (new) $74,500

 Peer review of new award applications 500

 nd Local Gr ants: Total budget authority 75,000

 Number of SEA awards 10

 Average SEA award $5,000

 Number of LEA awards 49

 Average LEA award $500

National Activities

School Emergency Management Activities

School Emergency M anagement Acti viti es: 

Grant award funds (new) $30,000 School Emergency M anagement Acti viti es: 

Technical assistance contract (continuation) 2,000 School Emergency M anagement Acti viti es: 

Total budget authority 32,000
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Successful, safe, and healthy students

F-24

Measures 2014 Footnote

School Emergency Management Activities 

(continued)

School Emergency M anagement Acti viti es: 

Number of SEA awards 52 School Emergency M anagement Acti viti es: 

Range of SEA awards $250-$3,326 School Emergency M anagement Acti viti es: 

Average SEA award $565 School Emergency M anagement Acti viti es: 

Outlying Areas and BIE Schools $600

School Climate Transformation Grants

 Grant award funds (new) $47,000

 Technical assistance (new) 2,500

 Peer review of new award applications 500

 e Transfor mation Grants Total budget authority 50,000

 Number of SEA awards 20

 Average SEA award $350

 Number of LEA awards 200

 Average LEA award $200

Project Prevent

 Grant award funds (new) $24,750

 Peer review of new award applications 250

 Project Pr event Total budget authority 25,000

School Emergency Preparedness: 

 Number of LEA awards 50

 Range of Awards $250-$1,000 School Emergency Preparedness: 

 Average award $495

Project SERV $5,000

Other National Activities

Model school climate survey (development and

 validation, and technical assistance)

$5,000

School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS) 2,000 Other Acti viti es: 

 National center for safe and supportive schools

 technical assistance contract (continuation) 1,500 Other Acti viti es: 

Other data collection, dissemination, outreach, and

 assistance (new and continuation) 679

 Other Acti vities: Total budget authority 9,179
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Successful, safe, and healthy students

F-25

Measures 2014 Footnote

Continuation Awards for Other Programs 

Consolidated into Successful, Safe, and Healthy 

Students:

Continuation Awar ds for Other Programs C onsolidated into Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students: 

Elementary and Secondary School Counseling $37,708 Continuation Awar ds for Other Programs C onsolidated into Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students: 

Physical Education 43,153 Continuation Awar ds for Other Programs C onsolidated into Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students: 

Total 80,861

Set-Asides for DOI Schools and Outlying Areas $1,960

Evaluation $1,000

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

The Department has not yet developed performance measures for the SSHS State and Local 

Grants program, but they will likely resemble the following measures that the Department is 

using for the Safe and Supportive Schools Grants initially funded under SDFSC National 

Programs in 2010:

• Percentage of eligible schools implementing programmatic interventions funded by Safe 

and Supportive Schools that experience a decrease in the percentage of students who 

report current (30-day) alcohol use;

• Percentage of eligible schools implementing programmatic interventions funded by Safe 

and Supportive Schools that experience a decrease in the percentage of students who 

report personal harassment or bullying on school property during the current school 

year;

• Percentage of eligible schools implementing programmatic interventions funded by Safe 

and Supportive Schools that experience an improvement in their school safety score;

and

• Percentage of eligible schools implementing programmatic interventions funded by Safe 

and Supportive Schools that experience a decrease in the number of suspensions for 

violent incidents without physical injury.

Data for the above measures would come from grantee annual performance reports. 

Performance measures for the proposed School Climate Transformation Grants and Project 

Prevent Grants will be developed later in 2013.
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

F-26

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 2014 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority: 

2012 2013 2014

Change 

from 2012

$64,877 $64,8772 0 -$64,877

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. The program is proposed for consolidation in FY 2014 under 

new legislation. 2 Excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175. 

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 discipline 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 largely included:

• Safe and Supportive Schools grant awards to State educational agencies (SEAs), and 

related technical assistance, to support statewide measurement of, and targeted 

programmatic interventions to improve, conditions for learning in order to help schools 

improve student safety and reduce drug abuse. Projects take a systematic approach to 

improving conditions for learning in eligible schools through improved measurement 

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

implementation of programmatic interventions that address problems identified by data. 

• Safe Schools/Healthy Students grant awards for comprehensive projects to help local 

educational agencies (LEAs) and communities create safe, disciplined, and drug-free 

learning environments, promote healthy childhood development, and provide needed 

mental health services for youth. To be eligible for Safe Schools/Healthy Students 

funding, an LEA must have demonstrated agreement in the form of a partnership among 

the major community systems serving students – schools, an early childhood agency, 

the local public mental health authority, law enforcement, and juvenile justice – to work 

collaboratively in assessing needs and providing programs and services in the following 

five areas: (1) promoting early childhood social and emotional learning and 

development; (2) promoting mental, emotional, and behavioral health; (3) connecting 

families, schools, and communities; (4) preventing and reducing alcohol, tobacco, and 
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Safe and drug-free schools and communities national activities

F-27

other drug use; and (5) creating safe and violence-free schools. The Department of 

Education has administered this initiative in collaboration with the Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), with joint agency 

funding.

• Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools grants and Emergency 

Management for Higher Education grants, and related technical assistance, for helping 

LEAs and institutions of higher education (IHEs) integrate all-hazards emergency 

management planning efforts within the framework of the four phases of emergency 

management (prevent-mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery).

• 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 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)

2009.........................................................$139,912

2010...........................................................191,341

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

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

2013.............................................................64,8771

_________________

1 Excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175. 

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting separate funding for the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 

Communities National Activities program for fiscal year 2014. In place of this and several other 

narrowly targeted programs that address students’ safety, health, and drug prevention, the 

Administration’s Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorization proposal 

would create a broader Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students (SSHS) program that would 

increase the capacity of States, districts, and their partners to provide the resources and 

supports necessary for safe, healthy, and successful students. This new program, which builds 

in part on the Safe and Supportive Schools grant competition the Department created in 2010 

under SDFSC National Activities, would help schools improve conditions for learning by 

implementing activities that reduce or prevent drug use, alcohol use, bullying, harassment, or 

violence, and promote and support the physical and mental well-being of students.

The Administration’s reauthorization proposal recognizes the challenge of attaining high student 

achievement in schools where students are threatened by drugs, violence, crime, bullying, 

harassment, or intimidation. The Administration also continues to be extremely concerned 

about improving school safety and helping schools repair the educational environment following 

emergencies, with a renewed focus stirred by incidents of school shootings such as the one at 

Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and natural disasters such as 
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Safe and drug-free schools and communities national activities

F-28

Hurricane Sandy. The reauthorization proposal would address these and related issues in a 

more comprehensive and flexible manner than supported by current authorities.

For example, under the proposed SSHS State and Local Grants authority, SEAs, high-need 

LEAs, and their partners would be eligible to apply for competitive grants to develop and 

implement programs that measure and improve conditions for learning based on local 

needs. The new program would provide grantees and their partners with the resources to 

design and implement strategies supporting safe, healthy, and successful students, which the 

Administration believes will lead to improved student academic achievement. The new program 

would provide increased flexibility for States and districts to design and implement strategies 

that best reflect the needs of their students and communities (which may include programs that 

support drug and violence prevention and other aspects of school safety). The 2014 request for 

SSHS State and Local Grants would emphasize the creation of learning environments that meet 

the needs of students living in poverty, to help mitigate the multiple risk factors that are too 

frequently a barrier to learning for such students, while also directing funds to turnaround 

schools and schools identified as high-need through school climate measurement.

The reauthorization proposal would also include a flexible National Activities authority under 

which the Department would carry out activities similar to those funded under current law (such 

as Project SERV and various forms of technical assistance), as well as several new initiatives 

that are included in Now Is The Time, the President’s plan to protect our children and our 

communities by reducing gun violence, making schools safer, and increasing access to mental 

health services. These initiatives include $30 million for grants to SEAs to help their LEAs 

develop, implement, and improve their emergency management plans; $50 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; and $25 million for Project Prevent grants to LEAs to help schools in communities with 

pervasive violence break the cycle of violence. The 2014 requests for the Departments of 

Justice and Health and Human Services include complementary initiatives that will ensure our 

students attend safe schools with nurturing and supportive climates and have access to the 

supports and interventions they need to succeed. Finally, the request for Successful, Safe, and 

Healthy Students includes funds to pay 2014 continuation costs for Safe and Drug-Free Schools 

and Communities National Activities contracts awarded in previous years.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2012 2013 2014

Safe and Supportive Schools

afe and Supporti ve Schools: 

Grant award funds (continuations) $46,404 $48,610 0 afe and Supporti ve Schools: 

National center for safe and supportive

 schools technical assistance contract 652 1,500 0 Safe and Supporti ve Schools: 

 Total budget authority 47,056 50,110 0
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Safe and drug-free schools and communities national activities

F-29

Measures 2012 2013 2014

Safe and Supportive Schools

(continued)

afe and Supporti ve Schools: 

Number of continuation awards 11 11 0 afe and Supporti ve Schools: 

Average award $4,219 $4,419 0

School Preparedness Initiative

School emergency management

 technical assistance activities $1,207 $3,000 0

Safe Schools/Healthy 

Students Initiative

Grant award funds (continuations) $16,439 0 0 afe Schools/H ealthy Students Initi ati ve: 

Number of awards 29 0 0 Safe Schools/H ealthy Students Initi ati ve: 

Average award $567 0 0

School Emergency Response to 

Violence (Project SERV)

0 $3,000 0

Other Activities $175 $8,767 0

_________________

NOTES: 2013 excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in Public Law 112-175.

Dollar amounts in the table above for Safe Schools/Healthy Students exclude $3,400 thousand from 

HHS/SAMHSA in 2012. At the combined agency funding level of $19,839 thousand the initiative funded 29 awards 

averaging $684 thousand each.

FY 2014 continuation costs (option years) of approximately $3,625 thousand for existing technical assistance 

contracts would be provided from the appropriation for the Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students program.

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 2014 and future years, as well as 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.
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Safe and drug-free schools and communities national activities

F-30

Safe and Supportive Schools

Goal: To help ensure that schools are safe, disciplined, and drug free by developing 

rigorous measurement systems and using data to implement high-quality drug- and 

violence-prevention strategies.

Objective: Safe and Supportive Schools grantees will demonstrate substantial progress in 

improving conditions for learning in targeted schools.

The Department will have baseline data later in 2013 on the following measures for the 2010 

cohort of Safe and Supportive Schools grants:

• Percentage of eligible schools implementing programmatic interventions that experience 

a decrease in the percentage of students who report current (30-day) alcohol use;

• Percentage of eligible schools implementing programmatic interventions that experience 

a decrease in the percentage of students who report personal harassment or bullying on 

school property during the current school year;

• Percentage of eligible schools implementing programmatic interventions that experience 

an improvement in their school safety score; and

• Percentage of eligible schools implementing programmatic interventions that experience 

a decrease in the number of suspensions for violent incidents without physical injury.

Safe Schools/Healthy Students 

Goal: To help ensure that schools are safe, disciplined, and drug free by promoting 

implementation of high-quality drug- and violence-prevention strategies.

Objective: Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative grantees will demonstrate substantial 

progress in improving student behaviors and school environments.

The following performance information is for the most recent (2007, 2008, and 2009) cohorts of 

Safe Schools/Healthy Students grants. (Beginning in 2010, the program has funded 

continuation awards only.)
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Safe and drug-free schools and communities national activities

F-31

Measure: The percentage of grantees that experience a decrease in the percentage of their 

students who did not go to school on one or more days during the past 30 days because they 

felt unsafe at school, or on their way to and from school.

Year

2007

Cohort

Target

2007

Cohort

Actual

2008

Cohort

Target

2008

Cohort

Actual

2009

Cohort

Target

2009

Cohort

Actual

2009 76.5 37.5 30.0

2010 78.8 55.7 50.0 62.8 37.5

2011 83.5 40.7 64.7 55.0 50.0 55.2

2012 68.6 46.4 56.9 31.0

2013 32.9

Measure: The percentage of grantees that experience a decrease in the percentage of their 

students who have been in a physical fight on school property in the 12 months prior to the 

survey.

Year

2007

Cohort

Target

2007

Cohort

Actual

2008

Cohort

Target

2008

Cohort

Actual

2009

Cohort

Target

2009

Cohort

Actual

2009 77.0 54.5 66.7

2010 79.3 66.7 68.0 65.9 25.0

2011 84.1 29.6 70.1 51.6 50.0 55.2

2012 74.3 48.1 56.9 79.3

2013 84.1

Measure: The percentage of grantees that report a decrease in the percentage of their 

students who report current (30-day) marijuana use.

Year

2007

Cohort

Target

2007

Cohort

Actual

2008

Cohort

Target

2008

Cohort

Actual

2009

Cohort

Target

2009

Cohort

Actual

2009 54.9 42.9 50.0

2010 56.5 37.5 51.0 43.6 0.0

2011 59.9 51.9 52.5 58.3 50.0 55.2

2012 61.8 45.6 56.9 55.1

2013 58.4
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Safe and drug-free schools and communities national activities

F-32

Measure: The percentage of grantees that report a decrease in students who report current 

(30-day) alcohol use.

Year

2007

Cohort

Target

2007

Cohort

Actual

2008

Cohort

Target

2008

Cohort

Actual

2009

Cohort

Target

2009

Cohort

Actual

2009 72.8 47.8 56.0

2010 75.0 66.7 57.1 60.0 0.0

2011 79.5 70.4 61.8 75.0 50.0 58.6

2012 79.5 63.1 60.4 65.5

2013 69.4

Measure: The percentage of grantees that report an increase in the number of students 

receiving school-based mental health services.

Year

2007

Cohort

Target

2007

Cohort

Actual

2008

Cohort

Target

2008

Cohort

Actual

2009

Cohort

Target

2009

Cohort

Actual

2009 70.0 90.0 83.3

2010 90.0 87.5 87.5 81.4 80.0

2011 90.0 51.9 90.0 56.7 84.0 62.1

2012 90.0 72.2 90.0 70.3

2013 74.5

Measure: The percentage of grantees that report an increase in the percentage of mental 

health referrals for students that result in mental health services being provided in the 

community.

Year

2007

Cohort

Target

2007

Cohort

Actual

2008

Cohort

Target

2008

Cohort

Actual

2009

Cohort

Target

2009

Cohort

Actual

2009 78.8 75.0 60.0

2010 86.6 50.0 63.0 71.8 80.0

2011 90.0 11.1 79.0 51.7 84.0 34.5

2012 90.0 42.3 90.0 54.2

2013 57.4

Additional information: For the second measure above (the percentage of grantees that 

experience a decrease in the percentage of their students who have been in a physical fight on 

school property in the 12 months prior to the survey), data for the 2007 cohort are a mixture of 

survey data and incident data. For the 2008 and 2009 cohorts, data for that measure are 

exclusively survey data. For the 2007 cohort for the last measure (the percentage of grantees 

that report an increase in the percentage of mental health referrals for students that result in 

mental health services being provided in the community), the 2011 actual data of 11 percent 

warrant some explanation. Only 48 percent of grantees reported a decrease on this metric, 

while the remaining 41 percent either reported they had no change, or did not report both of the 

2 years of data needed to determine how they performed on this measure.
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Safe and drug-free schools and communities national activities

F-33

Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools (REMS)

Goal: To help develop and implement comprehensive emergency management 

processes for schools.

Objective: REMS grantees will demonstrate substantial progress in improving emergency 

mitigation/prevention, preparedness, response and recovery efforts at their schools.

The Department last funded REMS grants (subsequently renamed school emergency 

management grants) in 2011. 

Measure: The percentage of grant sites that demonstrate they have increased the number of 

hazards addressed by the improved school emergency response plan as compared to the 

baseline plan.

Year

2006

Cohort

Target

2006

Cohort

Actual

2007

Cohort

Target

2007

Cohort

Actual

2008

Cohort

Target

2008

Cohort

Actual

2009 97.6

2010 98.0 88.5

2011 98.0 94.4

Measure: The percentage of grant sites that have a plan for, and commitment to, the 

sustainability and continuous improvement of a school emergency management plan by the 

district and community partners beyond the period of Federal financial assistance.

Year

2006

Cohort

Target

2006

Cohort

Actual

2007

Cohort

Target

2007

Cohort

Actual

2008

Cohort

Target

2008

Cohort

Actual

2009 100

2010 98.0 93.8

2011 98.0 100

Measure: The percentage of grant sites that demonstrate improved knowledge of school or 

district (or both) emergency management policies and procedures by school staff with 

responsibility for emergency management functions.

Year

2006

Cohort

Target

2006

Cohort

Actual

2007

Cohort

Target

2007

Cohort

Actual

2008

Cohort

Target

2008

Cohort

Actual

2009 97.6

2010 98.0 91.7

2011 98.0 100

Additional information: For the 2006 cohort only, the Department instead measured the 

percentage of grant sites that demonstrate improved response time and quality of response to 

practice drills and simulated crises. 
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Safe and drug-free schools and communities national activities

F-34

Beginning with the 2009 cohort of grants, the Department discontinued all three of the above 

measures and replaced them with the following new measure, for which baseline data will 

become available later in 2013: the average number of National Incident Management System 

(NIMS) course completions by key personnel at the start of the grant compared to the average 

number of NIMS course completions by key personnel at the end of the grant.

Emergency Management for Higher Education (EMHE)

The Department last funded EMHE grants in 2010.

Goal: To help develop and implement comprehensive emergency management and 

violence prevention processes for institutions of higher education.

Objective: EMHE grantees will demonstrate substantial progress in improving emergency 

mitigation/prevention, preparedness, response and recovery efforts on their campuses.

Measure: Demonstration of a 50 percent increase at the end of the project period in the 

number of course completions by their higher education institution key personnel in key National 

Incident Management System (NIMS) courses compared to the number of such courses 

completed at the start of the grant project period.

Year

2008

Cohort

Target

2008

Cohort

Actual

2009

Cohort

Target

2009

Cohort

Actual

2011 93.3

2012 98.0

Additional information: Data for the 2009 cohort are expected later in 2013. For the 

2010 cohort, the Department discontinued the above measure and replaced it with the following, 

for which data will become available in 2014: the average number of NIMS training course 

completions by key personnel at the start of the grant compared to the average number of NIMS 

course completions by key personnel at the end of the grant.

Other Performance Information

In addition to collecting data on the above performance measures directly from grantees, the 

Department has conducted (and is conducting) several evaluations to assess the impact of 

programs and interventions supported with SDFSC National Activities funds. Each of the 

following evaluations has been funded by SDFSC National Activities, except for the Safe 

Schools/Healthy Students evaluation, which is being funded by the Department of Health and 

Human Services.

Safe Schools/Healthy Students Evaluation

Two national evaluations of the Safe Schools/Healthy Students initiative have been conducted, 

the first under a cooperative agreement with the Department of Justice and the second under 

contract with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration in the 
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Safe and drug-free schools and communities national activities

F-35

Department of Health and Human Services. Both were jointly managed by the Departments of 

Education, Health and Human Services, and Justice. The evaluations sought to document the 

effectiveness of collaborative community efforts to promote safe schools and provide 

opportunities for healthy childhood development.

The first evaluation focused on the fiscal year 1999, 2000, and 2001 cohorts under the initiative, 

a total of 97 sites. Three waves of data were collected from each of the sites, with data 

collection spanning 2001-2004, and changes were calculated between wave one and wave 

three data collection for each of the three grant cohorts. Statistically significant changes (at the 

p=<.05 level) in student outcomes related to alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use and incidents 

of violence included the following:

• Self-reported data for high school students indicated decreases in 30-day alcohol and 

tobacco use, cigarette sales on school property, and disapproval of peer substance use. 

Current alcohol use was down 10 percent, and current tobacco use declined 13 percent. 

Middle and high school students also reported feeling less unsafe at school (a 7 percent 

reduction for middle school students and a 6 percent reduction for high school 

students).

• Teachers in elementary schools reported a 5 percent reduction in classroom bullying, a 

21 percent reduction in feeling threatened by a student, and an 11 percent reduction in 

being verbally abused by a student. 

The second evaluation examined activities implemented by 175 sites in the fiscal years 2005 

through 2009 cohorts. Data were collected through site visits, project- and school-level surveys, 

telephone interviews, and focus groups. Thus far, this evaluation has found that communities 

can make effective use of limited funds through high-functioning partnerships that bring together 

key local agencies to serve children and youth. The results offer substantial evidence of the 

Initiative’s success, including reduced violence and improved school safety, improved access to 

mental health services, and reduced alcohol and other drug use. By comparison, data for the 

same period (2005 to 2009) from sources such as the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (CDC, 2010) 

show no significant improvements in violence, school safety, or current substance use for youth 

in general across the Nation. Findings from the evaluation also demonstrate the effectiveness 

of the grants with regard to the collaboration among Safe Schools/Healthy Students partners, 

improved services and systems, and increased use of data to guide policies and procedures. 

Key findings from the evaluation for the 2005 to 2006 cohorts of grants (which have completed 

all grant activities and submitted complete data sets) include the following (based on data 

collected from the time of the grant award through January 2010):

• Violent incidents decreased by 11 percent.

• Fewer students reported that they had experienced violence (7 percent decrease) or 

witnessed violence (4 percent decrease).

• Ninety-six percent of school staff surveyed said SS/HS had improved school safety, 

more than 90 percent said SS/HS had reduced violence on school campuses, and 
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Safe and drug-free schools and communities national activities

F-36

almost 80 percent of school staff surveyed said SS/HS had reduced violence in the 

community.

• The number of students receiving school-based mental health services and communitybased mental health services increased 263 percent and 519 percent, respectively.

• More than 80 percent of school staff saw reductions in alcohol and other drug use.

Data collection and analysis continues on the cohorts awarded in fiscal years 2007, 2008 and 

2009.
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

F-37

Elementary and secondary school counseling

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority: 

2012 2013 2014

Change 

from 2012

$52,296 $52,2962 0 -$52,296

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. The program is proposed for consolidation in FY 2014

under new legislation. 2 Excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P. L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

2009 ...........................................................$52,000

2010 .............................................................55,000

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

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

2013 .............................................................52,2961

_____________________

1 Excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Elementary and secondary school counseling

F-38

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting separate funding for the Elementary and Secondary School 

Counseling program for fiscal year 2014. In place of this and narrowly targeted programs that 

address students’ safety, health, and drug-prevention needs, the Administration’s 

reauthorization proposal for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) would create 

a broader Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students program that would increase the capacity of 

States, districts, and their partners to provide the resources and supports necessary for safe, 

healthy, and successful students. This new program would help schools improve conditions for 

learning, including through the use of program funds for school counseling programs that 

contribute to the reduction or prevention of drug use, alcohol use, bullying, harassment, or 

violence, and that promote and support the physical and mental well-being of students. 

The Department recognizes the importance of and need for continued support of efforts to 

address student mental health issues. Estimates in Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon 

General (1999) show that more than 20 percent of American children and adolescents between 

the ages of 9 and 17 years 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 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 recent review of school counseling research, Whiston and Quinby (2009) 

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. For these reasons, the Administration’s reauthorization proposal would 

continue to provide funding for school counseling services. 

The President’s 2014 budget also provides funds for several related initiatives included in Now 

Is the Time, the President’s plan to protect our children and our communities by reducing gun 

violence. These include $25 million for Project Prevent grants under the Successful, Safe, and 

Healthy Students program to offer students mental health services for trauma or anxiety, and 

other efforts to help schools break the cycle of violence; $150 million in the Department of 

Justice for a Comprehensive School Safety Program that would provide funding to support the 

hiring of school safety personnel, including school resource officers, school psychologists, social 

workers, and counselors; and $55 million in the Department of Health and Human Services 

budget for a new initiative called Project AWARE (Advancing Wellness and Resilience in 

Education) to help teachers and other adults who regularly interact with students to recognize 

young people with mental health issues or other behavioral issues and ensure they are referred 

to the services they need.
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Elementary and secondary school counseling

F-39

The fiscal year 2014 request for the Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students program would 

include funds to pay 2014 continuation costs for ESSC grants made in previous years. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2012 2013 2014

Grant award funding (new) $21,299 $14,746 0

Grant award funding 

(continuations) $30,491 $37,550 0

Number of new awards 60 45 0

Number of continuations 84 89 0

Average grant award $360 $357 0

Peer review of new award 

applications $500 01 0

__________________

NOTES: 2013 excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175. 

FY 2014 continuation costs of $37,708 thousand would be provided from the appropriation for the Successful, 

Safe, and Healthy Students program. 1 The Department would fund new applications in FY 2013 from the FY 2012 slate.

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 2014 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.
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Elementary and secondary school counseling

F-40

Year

2008

Cohort

Target

2008

Cohort

Actual

2009

Cohort

Target

2009

Cohort

Actual

2010

Cohort

Target

2010

Cohort

Actual

2011 

Cohort 

Target

2011 

Cohort 

Actual

2009 100

2010 100 94 100

2011 100 91 100 91 100 90

2012 100 100 81 100 84

2013 100 100

2014

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

participating in the Elementary and Secondary School Counseling program.

Year

2008

Cohort

Target

2008

Cohort

Actual

2009

Cohort

Target

2009

Cohort

Actual

2010

Cohort

Target

2010

Cohort

Actual

2011 

Cohort 

Target

2011 

Cohort 

Actual

2009 1,720

2010 1,634 1,403 1,220

2011 1,548 1,897 1,159 1,205 1,648

2012 1,037 1,400 1,241 1,200 1,152

2013 1,117 1,037

2014

Additional information: Performance data are collected through annual grantee reports; 

2012 data for the 2008 cohort will be available later in 2013. For the 2012 and 2013 cohorts, 

the Department plans to establish performance targets once grantees submit baseline data.
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

F-41

Physical education program

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority:

2012 2013 2014

Change

from 2012

$78,693 $78,6932 0 -$78,693

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. The program is proposed for consolidation in FY 2014 

under new legislation. 2 Excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

and community-based organizations 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 entities 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. 

For the fiscal year 2010 competition, the Department developed 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. Historically, the program has funded 

projects that often focused heavily on the purchase of equipment without strong integration of 

that equipment into curriculum; did not take a comprehensive approach that recognizes the 

interdependency of physical, nutrition, and health education; did not use research-based 

curricula; or did not take into account local wellness policies or other community efforts 

supporting physical education and activity. The priorities and requirements established in 2010

address these deficiencies by, for example, (1) requiring that grantees 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, and (2) encouraging grantees to take a multi-sector, comprehensive 

approach by working with community partners. 
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Physical education program

F-42

Building on the priorities and requirements established in 2010, the Department developed 

further improvements to PEP for the fiscal year 2013 competition. Among the changes, the 

Department is including 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 intends for this priority to 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.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Year (dollars in thousands)

2009........................................................... $78,000

2010............................................................. 79,000

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

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

2013............................................................. 78,6931

_________________

1 Excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting separate funding for PEP for fiscal year 2014. In place of 

this and several other narrowly targeted, programs that address students’ safety, health, and 

drug prevention, the Administration’s Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) 

reauthorization proposal would create a broader Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students 

program that would increase the capacity of States, districts, and their partners to provide the 

resources and supports necessary for safe, healthy, and successful students, including the 

development and implementation of comprehensive PE programs.

Under the proposed Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students program, State educational 

agencies (SEAs), high-need LEAs, and their partners would be eligible to apply for competitive 

grants to develop and implement approaches for measuring and improving conditions for 

learning based on local needs, including by implementing activities that reduce or prevent drug 

use, alcohol use, bullying, harassment, or violence, and promote and support the physical and 

mental well-being of students. Further, this new program would provide increased flexibility for 

States and districts to design and implement strategies that best reflect the needs of their 

students and communities (which may include programs that support PE). Additionally, the 

Effective Teaching and Learning for a Well-Rounded Education program in the Education 

Improvement Programs account would address the need to strengthen instruction and increase 

student achievement, across content areas, which would include health education and PE.

The Administration recognizes the importance of and need for continued support of PE, 

improved nutrition, and fitness. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

(CDC), obese children are more likely to develop high blood pressure, high cholesterol, type 2 

diabetes, and breathing problems. CDC data also show that in the past 30 years the 
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Physical education program

F-43

prevalence of unhealthy body weight among children has nearly tripled. As of the 2007-2008 

data collection period for the CDC’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey

(NHANES), approximately 17 percent of children and adolescents ages 2 through 19 were

obese, compared to 6 percent in the 1976-1980 NHANES. This likely has, in part, resulted from 

reduced physical activity among youth. In 2007, only 18 percent of students in grades 9-12 met 

the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans established by the Department of Health and 

Human Services. According to the 2007 National Survey of Children’s Health conducted by 

CDC, 36 percent of children ages 6-17 were 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. According to the CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior 

Survey, only 32 percent of students in grades 9-12 attended daily PE classes in 2011.

The fiscal year 2014 request for the Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students program would 

include funds to pay 2014 continuation costs for PEP grants made in previous years.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2012 2013 2014

Grant award funding (new) $28,667 $35,701 0

Grant award funding (continuations) 49,633 42,269 0

Peer review of new award applications 0 600 0

Evaluation 393 123 0

Number of new grant awards 56 95 0

Number of continuation grant awards 145 129 0

Average grant award $390 $345 0

_________________

NOTES: FY 2013 data exclude the 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

FY 2014 continuation costs of approximately $43,153 thousand would be provided from the appropriation for the 

Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students program. 

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 2014 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
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Physical education program

F-44

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. 

Baseline and year 1 data for these measures are available for the 2010 cohort. Among the 

students served by 2010 cohort of grantees, 36 percent engaged in at least 60 minutes of daily 

physical activity at the beginning of the first school year and 65 percent engaged in at least 

60 minutes of daily physical activity at the end of the school year. The cost per student 

achieving this standard at the end of year 1 was $884. The proportion of students served by the 

grant who achieve age-appropriate cardiovascular fitness levels increased from 36 percent at 

the beginning of year 1 to 44 percent at the end of year 1. 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 went from a baseline of 22 percent to a year-end level of 20 percent. The Department 

will have 2012 data for the 2010 and 2011 cohorts later this spring.

Along with the changes to PEP being implemented in the fiscal year 2013 competition that are 

mentioned above, the Department revised one of the measures developed in 2010. The new 

measure will replace the one on age-appropriate cardiovascular fitness level with a more 

comprehensive measure of fitness. This measure is: 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. The Department will have baseline and year 1 data for this measure in spring 

2015. 

Existing grantees from cohorts first funded prior to fiscal year 2010 still report on the previous 

performance measures shown in the tables that follow. The Department adopted these 

standards based on input from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

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 elementary students served by the grant who engage in 

150 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per week.

Year

2006

Cohort

Target

2006

Cohort

Actual

2007 

Cohort 

Target

2007

Cohort

Actual

2008

Cohort

Target

2008

Cohort 

Actual

2009

Cohort 

Target

2009 

Cohort

Actual

2009 72 60 45 72 61 57

2010 76 69 64 63 64

2011 67 67 76

2012 71
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Physical education program

F-45

Measure: The percentage of secondary students served by the grant who engage in 

225 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per week. 

Year

2006

Cohort

Target

2006

Cohort

Actual

2007 

Cohort 

Target

2007

Cohort

Actual

2008

Cohort

Target

2008

Cohort 

Actual

2009

Cohort 

Target

2009 

Cohort 

Actual

2009 60 56 58 57 54 43

2010 61 60 57 55 50

2011 59 53 72

2012 55

Additional information: Grantees from the 2008 cohort reported a small increase in student 

physical activity at both the elementary and secondary levels in their second project year. The 

data from the baseline and year 1 data for the 2009 cohort also show an increase in student 

physical activity at the elementary and secondary levels.

These measures will have only three data points for each of the 2006, 2007, and 2008 cohorts, 

corresponding with the end of each project year. Beginning with the 2009 cohort, grantees are 

conducting an additional data collection at the start of the grant in order to establish a baseline 

that more accurately reflects the participants’ initial activity levels. However, this will still result 

in two targets because both the baseline and year one data are reported at the end of year one. 

The last year of reporting for the 2009 cohort is 2012 and, therefore, there are no targets in 

2013 and 2014. Because a number of grantees receive a one-year no-cost extension, data are 

not yet available for the 2008 cohort. Those data and 2012 data will be available later this 

spring. 

Efficiency Measure

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

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

Measure: The cost per student who achieves the level of physical activity required to meet the 

physical activity measures for the program (150 minutes of moderate to vigorous activity for 

elementary students and 225 minutes of moderate to vigorous activity for middle and high 

school students). 

Year

2006

Cohort

Target

2006

Cohort

Actual

2007 

Cohort 

Target

2007

Cohort

Actual

2008

Cohort

Target

2008

Cohort 

Actual

2009

Cohort 

Target

2009 

Cohort

Actual

2009 $181 $225 $181 $168 $560

2010 160 175 $532 638 $640

2011 504 $608

2012 578

Additional information: The efficiency measure for the program through the 2009 cohort is 

the cost per successful outcome, as measured by the outcome measures for those cohorts 
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Physical education program

F-46

above. The 2007 and 2008 cohorts showed increases in the cost per successful outcome in 

2010. Unlike the measures in the above tables, there is no baseline for the 2009 cohort 

because cost per successful outcome is not meaningful at the start of the grant period. The 

Department will have data for 2011 and 2012 later this spring. 

Other Performance Information

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

Preliminary findings, released in an evaluation brief 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 is also finding 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, and the failure of students to complete and return the surveys needed for the 

performance measures. The final report of the study will be available in summer 2014.
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

F-47

21st Century community learning centers

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part B)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2014 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2012 2013 2014

Change

from 2012

$1,151,673 $1,151,6732 $1,251,673 +$100,000

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorizing language is sought for fiscal year 2014. 2 Excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) program enables communities to 

establish or expand centers that provide additional student learning opportunities, such as 

before- and after-school programs and summer school programs, and provide related services 

to their families. Centers must target their services primarily to students who attend schools 

eligible to operate a schoolwide program under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act (ESEA) (which are schools with at least a 40 percent child poverty rate) or other 

schools that serve a high percentage of students from low-income families. In addition to 

activities designed to help students meet State and local student academic achievement 

standards, program funds may be used to provide other activities that complement and reinforce 

the regular school-day program of participating students, such as art and music education 

activities, recreational activities, telecommunications and technology education programs, 

expanded library service hours, family engagement and literacy programs, and drug and 

violence prevention activities. 

Program funds are allocated by formula to States. Of the total appropriation, the Department 

reserves up to 1 percent to carry out national activities and up to 1 percent for grants to the 

Department of the Interior/Bureau of Indian Education and to the Outlying Areas. The 

Department allocates the remaining funds to States in proportion to each State’s share of funds 

in the previous fiscal year under Part A of ESEA Title I. However, no State may receive less 

than one-half of 1 percent of the total amount available for States. 

Each State educational agency (SEA) must award at least 95 percent of its allocation 

competitively to local educational agencies (LEAs), community-based organizations, faith-based 

organizations, or other public or private entities that can demonstrate experience, or the promise 

of success, in providing educational and related activities. In making awards, States give 

priority to applications that: (1) propose to target services to students who attend schools 

identified as in need of improvement under Title I; and (2) are submitted jointly by at least one 
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

21st Century community learning centers

F-48

LEA that receives funds under Part A of Title I and at least one community-based organization 

or other public or private entity. States must make awards of at least $50,000 per year for a 

period of 3 to 5 years.

An SEA may reserve up to 2 percent of its allocation for administrative expenses, including the 

costs of conducting its grants competition. In addition, an SEA may reserve up to 3 percent of 

its allocation for monitoring local programs, providing technical assistance and training, and 

evaluating the effectiveness of the State’s program.

As part of ESEA flexibility, States were able to request the authority to use 21st CCLC funds to 

support expanded learning time (ELT) during the school day in addition to activities during nonschool hours or periods when school is not in session (i.e., before- and after-school or during 

the summer). 

Under ESEA flexibility, 21st CCLC funds may be used for activities to support ELT during the 

regular school day in a school that has added significantly more time by expanding the school 

day, school week, or school year to increase learning time for all students. Examples of such 

activities include using the additional time to support a well-rounded education that includes 

time for academics and enrichment activities; providing additional time for teacher collaboration 

and common planning; and partnering with one or more outside organizations, such as a 

nonprofit organization, with demonstrated experience in improving student achievement.

This program is forward funded. Funds become available for obligation on July 1 of the fiscal 

year in which they are appropriated and remain available for 15 months through September 30 

of the following year.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2009 ......................................................$1,131,166

2010 ........................................................1,166,166

2011 .......................................................1,153,854

2012 ........................................................1,151,673

2013 ........................................................1,151,6731

_________________

1 Excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175.

FY 2014 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $1.25 billion in fiscal year 2014 funding for the 21st CCLC program, 

an increase of $100 million over the fiscal year 2012 level. The 21st CCLC program is 

authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and is, therefore, subject to 

reauthorization. The request assumes that the program will be implemented in fiscal year 2014 

under reauthorized legislation and is based on the Administration’s reauthorization proposal. 
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

21st Century community learning centers

F-49

Under this proposal, the Department would make competitive grants to State educational 

agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs), by themselves or in partnership with 

nonprofit organizations or local governmental entities. Projects would implement in-school and 

out-of-school strategies for providing students (and, where appropriate, teachers and family 

members), particularly those in high-need schools, the additional time, support, and enrichment 

activities needed to improve student achievement. States that receive awards would subgrant 

funds to high-need LEAs (alone or in partnership with one or more nonprofit organizations or 

local governmental entities) or nonprofit organizations.

The fiscal year 2014 request would build upon the progress made by States that, as part of the 

Department’s ESEA flexibility initiative, are approved to use 21st CCLC funds to support 

activities during the school day as part of ELT. The reauthorized 21st CCLC program would 

provide resources that local recipients could use to expand learning time by significantly 

increasing the number of hours in a regular school schedule or by comprehensively redesigning 

the school schedule for all students in a school. Grantees could also use program funds to 

provide the “wraparound services” now offered through the Full-Service Community Schools 

program, which would be consolidated into the 21st CCLC program under reauthorization. The 

Administration’s reauthorization proposal would continue to allow funds to be used for beforeand after-school programs, summer enrichment programs, and summer school programs, and 

would additionally permit States and eligible local entities to use funds to support ELT programs 

and full-service community schools. This enhanced flexibility would allow communities to 

determine the best strategies for providing their students and teachers the time and support 

they need. The increased funding requested for fiscal year 2014 would enable grantees to 

support this expanded menu of programs and strategies and to provide high-quality 

programming for students and their families. 

All local projects would provide additional time for students, including students with the greatest 

academic needs and those who are meeting State academic achievement standards, to 

participate in (1) academic activities that are targeted to their academic needs; and 

(2) enrichment and other activities that complement the academic program. Projects could also 

provide teachers the time they need to collaborate, plan, and engage in professional 

development within and across grades and subjects. In making awards to eligible local entities, 

the Department would give priority to applications from partnerships between districts and other 

eligible entities (such as nonprofit organizations and local governmental entities), to applicants 

that focus the use of grant funds on the lowest-performing schools in the State, or to applicants 

that propose to develop and implement expanded-learning-time programs or full-service 

community schools. 

The Department believes that the reauthorized 21st CCLC program would increase the 

likelihood for positive student outcomes. Research suggests that programs that significantly 

increase the total number of hours in a regular school schedule can produce gains in student 

academic achievement.1

 Moreover, emerging research suggests that high-quality after-school 

programs may have a positive impact on other desirable student outcomes, such as higher 

 1 For example, see Frazier, Julie A.; Morrison, Frederick J. The Influence of Extended-year Schooling on Growth 

of Achievement and Perceived Competence in Early Elementary School. Child Development. Vol. 69 (2), April 1998, 

pp.495-517. Note that this study evaluated the impact of lengthening the school year. 
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

21st Century community learning centers

F-50

attendance during the regular school day and increased student academic achievement.2

 

Regular participation in high-quality, enriching programs appears to be one factor that has an 

impact on student outcomes, but data from the current 21st CCLC program demonstrate that 

student participation rates may be a program quality concern; in 2012, States reported that less 

than half of the total number of students served (about 900,000 of almost 1.9 million) attended 

programs for 30 days or more over the course of the 2010-11 program year. By lengthening the 

school day or year for all students, expanded-learning-time programs could improve 21st CCLC 

program attendance by reaching beyond the students who are inclined to regularly attend 

voluntary after-school programs. In addition, the Department believes that allowing schools to 

provide comprehensive and integrated services (often referred to as “wraparound services”) at 

the school site, including during the school day, would help to meet the educational, 

developmental, mental, behavioral, and emotional health needs of students, families, and 

members of the community.

Program quality would also be improved by transforming the program from a formula to a 

competitive grant program. Within this framework, a new emphasis on increasing the number of 

instructional hours, together with support for increased attendance in high-quality before- and 

after-school programs, expanded-learning-time programs, and full-service community schools, 

should lead to improved results for students, including improved academic outcomes. Among 

other changes, the reauthorized statute would specify that activities funded under the program 

should promote a range of improved academic outcomes and that the academic content in 

21st CCLC programs should be targeted to students’ academic needs. 

Finally, the Department would reserve a portion of the funds for national activities, including 

research, data collection, technical assistance, outreach, and dissemination. These activities 

would focus on the identification and promotion of effective efforts to expand learning time, 

provide comprehensive services, and increase community and parental involvement. In 

addition, fiscal year 2014 funds would be used to pay the 2014 continuation costs of FullService Community Schools grants made (under the Fund for the Improvement of Education in 

the Innovation and Improvement account) in prior fiscal years.

Recognizing the role that ELT can play in improving student outcomes, the Administration will 

request authority to use the $100 million increase proposed for 2014 for competitive grants to 

support high-quality ELT models if the Congress does not reauthorize the ESEA prior to 

enactment of fiscal year 2014 appropriations.

 2 For example, see Reisner, Elizabeth R.; White, Richard N.; Russell, Christina A.; Birmingham, Jennifer. 2004. 

Building Quality, Scale, and Effectiveness in After-School Programs: Summary Report of the TASC Evaluation. 
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

21st Century community learning centers

F-51

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2012 footnote2013 Footnote2014 footnote

Formula Grant Program

 Amount distributed to States $1,128,640 $1,128,640 0

 Average State award $21,705 $21,705 0

 Range of awards to States $5,643-$124,077 $5,643-$128,861 0 Formul a Gr ant Program:

Reservation for State activities 

and administration 

(maximum) $56,432 $56,432 0 Formul a Gr ant Program:

National activities and 

evaluation $11,517 $11,517 0 Formul a Gr ant Program:

Amount for Bureau of Indian 

Education and the Outlying 

Areas $11,517 $11,517 0

Competitive Grant Program:

Competiti ve Grant Program:

Amount awarded to States and 

eligible local entities 0 0 $1,216,295 Competiti ve Grant Program:

Amount for Bureau of Indian 

Education and the Outlying 

Areas 0 0 $12,517 Competiti ve Grant Program: 

National Activities 0 0 $12,517 Competiti ve Grant Program: 

Peer review of new award 

applications $5,000 Competiti ve Grant Program: 

Continuation Costs for the FullService Community Schools 

program 0 0 $5,344

Data on Centers

Data on Centers: 

Number of centers supported 9,900 9,900 9,900 Data on Centers: 

Total students served 1,850,300 1,850,300 1,994,000 Data on Centers: 

Students attending 30 days or 

more 886,600 886,600 1,051,026 Data on Centers: 

Total adult family members 

served 270,800 270,800 291,800

________________________

NOTES: Data on the number of centers are based on 2010-2011 State-reported data and the assumption of higher 

participation rates due to increased implement of ELT programs.

2013 excludes a 0.612 percent across-the-board increase provided in P.L. 112-175
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

21st Century community learning centers

F-52

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 2014 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program.

Goal: To establish community learning centers that help students in high-poverty, lowperforming schools meet academic achievement standards, that offer a broad array of 

additional services designed to complement the regular academic program, and that 

offer families of students opportunities for educational development. 

Objective: Participants in 21st Century Community Learning Center programs will demonstrate 

educational and social benefits and exhibit positive behavioral changes.

Measure: The percentage of regular program participants whose mathematics grades improve 

from fall to spring.

Year

Target 

Elementary

School 

Participants

Target

Middle and 

High School 

Participants

Target

All 

Participants

Actual 

Elementary

Participants

Actual

Middle and 

High School 

Participants

Actual

All 

Participants

2009 48.0 48.0 48.0 37.0 34.2 36.6

2010 48.5 48.5 48.5 38.4 33.8 36.7

2011 48.5 48.5 48.5 39.5 34.1 37.2

2012 48.5 48.5 48.5

2013 48.5 48.5 48.5

2014 48.5 48.5 48.5
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

21st Century community learning centers

F-53

Measure: The percentage of regular program participants whose English grades improve from 

fall to spring.

Year

Target 

Elementary

School 

Participants

Target

Middle and 

High School 

Participants

Target

All 

Participants

Actual 

Elementary

Participants

Actual

Middle and 

High School 

Participants

Actual

All 

Participants

2009 48.0 48.0 48.0 39.1 35.3 38.2

2010 48.5 48.5 48.5 40.2 34.6 38.0

2011 48.5 48.5 48.5 40.3 35.7 38.3

2012 48.5 48.5 48.5

2013 48.5 48.5 48.5

2014 48.5 48.5 48.5

Additional information: A “regular participant” is defined as a student who attends the 

program for 30 days or more during the course of the school year. To report data by grade 

span for this measure, the data system sorts program performance data by analyzing participant 

demographic information at the center level (as opposed to the individual student level). For 

this reason, programs that serve youth of all ages are not included in the columns 

disaggregated by participant age. 

Measure: The percentage of regular program participants who improve from not proficient to 

proficient or above on State assessments.

Year

Target 

Elementary

Reading

Target Middle 

and High School 

Math

Actual 

Elementary

Reading

Actual Middle 

and High School 

Math

2009 26.0 16.0 25.6 16.9

2010 35.0 20.0 26.5 17.8

2011 40.0 25.0 19.9 18.2

2012 40.0 25.0

2013 45.0 25.0

2014 45.0 25.0

Additional information: The Department calculates results for this measure by dividing the 

number of regular participants who scored proficient or better in spring of the reporting year (but 

were not proficient in the previous year) by the total number of current-year regular participants 

who scored below proficient the previous spring. For a regular participant to be included in the 

data for this measure, the center has to have data on the student’s prior-year and current-year 

State assessment results. The 2011 data represent 535,386 regular elementary school-aged 

attendees and 249,290 middle- and high-school-aged attendees. 
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

21st Century community learning centers

F-54

Measure: The percentage of students with teacher-reported improvements in student behavior.

Year

Target 

Elementary

School 

Participants

Target

Middle and 

High School 

Participants

Target

All 

Participants

Actual 

Elementary

Participants

Actual

Middle and 

High School 

Participants

Actual

All 

Participants

2009 75 75 75 68.7 67.6 68.6

2010 75 75 75 68.7 65.0 67.8

2011 75 75 75 68.4 63.3 68.7

2012 75 75 75

2013 75 75 75

2014 75 75 75

Additional information: As with the measures for reading and math grades and proficiency, to 

report data by grade span for this measure the data system sorts program performance data by 

analyzing participant demographic information at the center level (as opposed to the individual 

student level). For this reason, programs that serve youth of all ages are not included in the 

columns disaggregated by grade level. 

Efficiency Measures

The Department has developed three operational efficiency measures for the 21st CCLC 

program. 

Measure: The percentage of SEAs that submit complete data on 21st Century Community 

Centers program performance measures by the deadline.

Year Target Actual

2009 80 80

2010 85 86

2011 90 94

2012 95 78

2013 95

2014 95 

Measure: The average number of days it takes the Department to submit a final monitoring 

report to an SEA after the conclusion of a site visit.

Year Target Actual

2009 45 60

2010 40 45

2011 35 55

2012 35 60

2013 30

2014 30
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

21st Century community learning centers

F-55

Measure: The average number of weeks a State takes to resolve compliance findings in a 

monitoring visit report.

Year Target Actual

2009 5

2010 4 4

2011 4 3

2012 4 3

2013 4

2014 4

Additional information: This measure tracks States’ timeliness in responding to the 

Department’s fiscal management monitoring findings that require States to take corrective 

action within 30 days. Examples of such fiscal management findings include: drawing down 

funds in a manner that is not consistent with State and Federal policies; awarding funds for 

periods other than between 3 and 5 years (the subgrant length required by the statute); and 

improperly limiting entities eligible for subgrants.

Other Performance Information

In 2003, the Department’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES) began a rigorous study that 

developed and tested the effectiveness of two after-school interventions (one each in math and 

reading) that were adapted from materials from existing school-day curricula that are based on 

sound theory or that have scientific evidence of effectiveness. The final report for this study, 

The Evaluation of Enhanced Academic Instruction in After-School Programs, was released in 

September 2009. The evaluation found a statistically significant improvement in student

achievement between students in the math after-school program and those in the regular afterschool activities after 1 year of enhanced instruction but no additional achievement benefit 

beyond the 1-year impact after 2 years of participation. In study sites implementing the reading 

program, there was no statistically significant difference in reading achievement between 

students in the reading after-school program and those in the regular after-school activities after 

1 year of the program; after 2 years of the program, there was a statistically significant negative 

impact on reading achievement. It is important to note that the sample of centers was not 

nationally representative and that findings from this study cannot, therefore, be generalized to 

the 21st CCLC program. 

In addition, the Department’s Policy and Program Studies Service (PPSS) analyzed data from a 

nationally representative sample of 21st CCLC programs to evaluate State and local program 

implementation. The resulting report, 21st Century Community Learning Center: Descriptive 

Study of Program Practices, was released in July 2010. The evaluation focused on how, and to 

what extent, funds support high-quality programs that emphasize academic content, as well as 

staffing patterns and other features of after-school program implementation that may have an 

impact on the quality of the programming offered. Centers reported that about half of their 

students attended roughly 2 days a week or more. In addition, three-quarters of the centers 

reported that a typical student participated in reading activities (75 percent) and mathematics 

activities (81 percent) for less than 4 hours per week. About half of centers reported offering 

professional development opportunities to staff through training courses or conferences.
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

21st Century community learning centers

F-56

The Department is currently initiating two additional evaluations of the 21st CCLC program. 

Through the first, led by PPSS, the Department will collect information about State-administered 

competitions for 21st CCLC subgrants. Among other things, the Department expects to learn 

about State definitions of program quality, outreach efforts, and monitoring practices, and hopes 

that this information will inform efforts to strengthen technical assistance to States that conduct 

competitions for Federal funds now and in the future if more programs with this structure are 

created under a reauthorized ESEA. The second evaluation, led by IES, began in fall 2012 and 

will focus on assessing the implementation of ELT programs in States that received the 

authority, under ESEA flexibility, to use 21st CCLC funds to support ELT during the school day. 

The IES study will also help determine the feasibility of an impact evaluation of high-quality ELT 

programs.