Department of Education

SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request

CONTENTS

Page

Summary of request:

Appropriations Language ........................................................................................................D-1

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

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

Summary of Changes .............................................................................................................D-4

Authorizing Legislation............................................................................................................D-5

Appropriations History.............................................................................................................D-6

Summary of Request ..............................................................................................................D-7

Activities:

School safety national activities ..........................................................................................D-9

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

Physical education program..............................................................................................D-21

Promise neighborhoods....................................................................................................D-27

Full-service community schools ........................................................................................D-32
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Appropriations Language

For carrying out activities authorized by subparts 2 and 3 of part [A]F of title IV [and 

subparts 1, 2, and 10 of part D of title V] of the ESEA, [$244,815,000]$228,000,000: Provided, 

That [$75,000,000]$90,000,000 shall be available for [subpart 2 of part A of title IV] section 

46311, of which up to $5,000,000, to remain available until expended, shall be for the Project 

School Emergency Response to Violence (‘‘Project SERV’’) program2 [to provide educationrelated services to local educational agencies and institutions of higher education in which the 

learning environment has been disrupted due to a violent or traumatic crisis]

3

: Provided further, 

That [$73,254,000]$10,000,000 shall be available for section 46254: Provided further, That

$128,000,000 shall be available through December 31, [2016 for Promise Neighborhoods] 2017

for section 46245. (Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2016.)

NOTE

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

Provisions and Changes document, which follows the appropriations language.

D-1
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1

...[Provided, That [$75,000,000]$90,000,000

shall be available for section 4631...

This language earmarks funds for Safe 

Schools National Activities (section 4631) in 

order to override the $5 million reservation 

for School Safety National Activities in 

section 4601(b)(1) of the ESEA.

2

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

available until expended, shall be for the 

Project School Emergency Response to 

Violence (‘‘Project SERV’’) program...

This language earmarks funds for Project 

SERV (under Safe Schools National

Activities) and makes these funds available 

for obligation at the Federal level until they 

are expended.

3

...[to provide education-related services to 

local educational agencies and institutions of 

higher education in which the learning 

environment has been disrupted due to a 

violent or traumatic crisis...]

This Project SERV language, which 

authorized the program through 

appropriations language in 2016, is deleted 

because in 2017, Project SERV is included 

under section 4631 of the reauthorized 

ESEA. 

4

...Provided further, That 

[$73,254,000]$10,000,000 shall be available 

for section 4625...

This language earmarks funds for FullService Community Schools in order to 

override the authorized level for the program 

under ESEA section 4601(b)(2)(B).

5

...Provided further, That $128,000,000 shall 

be available through December 31, [2016 for 

Promise Neighborhoods] 2017 for section 

4624.

This language earmarks funds for the 

Promise Neighborhoods program in order to 

override the authorized level for the program 

under ESEA section 4601(b)(2)(B), and gives 

the Department an additional 3 months 

beyond the end of fiscal year 2016 to 

obligate them.

D-2
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Appropriation, Adjustments, and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2015 2016 2017

Discretionary:

Discretionar y Appropriation........................................................... $223,315 $244,815 $228,000

Discretionar y Comparative transfer from:

 Innovation and Improvement for:

 Full-Service Community Schools — +10,000 0

 Total, comparable appropriation ...................... 223,315 254,815 228,000

D-3
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2016................................................................................................. $254,815

2017................................................................................................. 228,000

Net change ............................................................... -26,815

Increases: 2016 base

Change 

from base

Program:

Program Increase for School Safety National Activities to support 

additional Project Prevent grants to communities 

suffering from chronic violence and for a new School 

Safety and Preparedness grants competition supporting 

the development and implementation of high-quality 

school emergency operations plans at the local level. $75,000 +$15,000

Program Increase for Promise Neighborhoods to support 

significant new investments in grants to communitybased organizations for the 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. 73,254 +54,746

Subtotal, increases +69,746

Decreases:

Program

Program Eliminate funding for the Elementary and Secondary 

School Counseling and Physical Education programs 

because with the enactment of the Every Student 

Succeeds Act, the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act (ESEA) no longer includes these programs. The 

budget request includes funds for Student Support and 

Academic Enrichment Grants which LEAs may use to 

carry out similar activities. 96,561 -96,561

Subtotal, decreases -96,561

Net change -28,815

D-4
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity 2016

Authorized

Footnote

2016

Estimate

2017

Authorized

footnote

2017

Request

School safety national activities (ESEA IV-F, Subpart 3, 

Section 4631) 01, 2 $75,000 $5,0003 $90,000

Elementary and secondary school counseling (ESEA V-D, 

Subpart 2) 01 49,561 04 0

Physical education program (ESEA V-D, Subpart 10) 01 47,000 04 0

Promise neighborhoods (ESEA IV-F, Subpart 2, 

section 4624)) 01, 5 73,254 (6) 128,000

Full-service community schools (ESEA IV-F, Subpart 2, 

section 4625) 01, 5 10,000 (6) 10,000

Total definite authorization 0 5,000

Total appropriation 223,315 228,000

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; the program was authorized in 2016 through appropriations language. 2 Prior to fiscal year 2017, the program was Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities National Activities, as authorized by P.L. 107-110, ESEA IV-A, 

Subpart 2, section 4121. 3 A total of $220,741 thousand is authorized for Part F of Title IV. Of the funds appropriated for Part F, $5,000 thousand is reserved under section 4601(b)(1)

to carry out the School Safety National Activities under Subpart 3 (section 4631). The budget request includes appropriations language to override the 

authorization level. 4 The authorization for the program was repealed, effective October 1, 2016, by P.L. 114-95. 5 Prior to fiscal year 2017, the program was authorized under ESEA V-D, Subpart 1, which was repealed by P.L. 114-95. 6 A total of $220,741 thousand is authorized for Part F of Title IV. Of the funds appropriated for Part F, $5,000 thousand is reserved for Subpart 3 and of the 

remainder, 36 percent is authorized for the Promise Neighborhoods and Full-Service Community Schools programs under Subpart 2. The budget request includes 

appropriations language to override the authorization level for Subpart 2.

D-5
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget 

Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance

Footnote Senate 

Allowance

Footnote

Appropriation

Footnote

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

2009 281,963 714,4811 666,3841 690,370

2010 413,608 395,753 438,0612 393,053

2011 1,786,166 384,8413 426,0532 288,4654

2012 1,781,132 65,0005 270,4635 255,753

2013 1,447,539 108,4876 259,5896 242,375

2014 1,831,673 N/A7 330,4812 270,892

2015 1,463,370 N/A7 270,8928 223,315

2016 349,561 56,7549 120,3149 244,815

2017 228,000

1 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. 2 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Committee action only. 3 The level for the House allowance reflects the House-passed full-year continuing resolution. 4 The level for appropriation reflects the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 

2011 (P.L. 112-10). 5 The level for the House allowance reflects an introduced bill; the level for the Senate allowance reflects Senate 

Committee action only. 6 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. 7 The House Allowance is shown as N/A because there was no Subcommittee action. 8 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Senate Subcommittee action only. 9 The levels for House and Senate allowances reflect action on the regular annual 2016 appropriations bill, which 

proceeded in the 114th Congress only through the House Committee and Senate Committee.

D-6
Summary of R equ est

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET

(in thousands of dollars)

Click here for accessible version 

Amount Percent

Safe Schools and Citizenship Education

1. School safety national activities (ESEA IV-F-3, section 4631) 1 D 70,000 75,000 90,000 15,000 20.00%

2. Elementary and secondary school counseling (ESEA V-D, subpart 2; repealed by P.L. 114-95) 2 D 52,509 49,561 0 (49,561) -100.00%

3. Physical education program (ESEA V-D, subpart 10; repealed by P.L. 114-95) 2 D 44,052 47,000 0 (47,000) -100.00%

4. Promise neighborhoods (ESEA IV-F-2, section 4624) D 56,754 73,254 128,000 54,746 74.73%

5. Full-service community schools (ESEA IV-F-2, section 4625) 3 D --- 10,000 10,000 0 0.00%

 Total D 223,315 254,815 228,000 (26,815) -10.52%

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

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

1 Prior to fiscal year 2017, the program was Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities National Activities, as authorized by P.L. 107-110, ESEA IV-A-2, section 4121.

2 Reflects a one-time reprogramming in fiscal year 2015 of $2,948 thousand from the Physical Education Program to Elementary and Secondary School Counseling.

3 In the 2015 Appropriation column, funds are included in the Innovation and Improvement account in the Fund for the Improvement of Education Programs of National Significance. The 2016 Appropriation column, 

adjusted for comparability with the 2017 President’s Budget, includes $10,000 thousand that was appropriated in the Innovation and Improvement account. 

2017 President's Budget

2016 Compared to 2016 Appropriation

Account, Program and Activity Appropriation

Category 

Code

2015 

Appropriation

2017 President's 

Budget

D-7

D-7
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Summary of Request

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

improve students’ safety and well-being, improve significantly the educational and 

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

and provide comprehensive academic, social, and health services for students, students’ family 

members, and community members that promote improved educational outcomes for children. 

Funding in the account is requested for the following three programs:

• $90 million for School Safety National Activities, an increase of $15 million over the 2016

level, focused on key initiatives in “Now Is The Time,” the President's common-sense plan to 

make our schools safer and protect our children from gun violence. These include 

$46.5 million for School Climate Transformation Grants continuation awards to SEAs and 

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

staff to implement evidence-based behavioral intervention strategies to improve school 

climate; $24.5 million (of which $10 million would support an estimated 15 new awards) for 

Project Prevent grant awards to LEAs to help schools in communities with pervasive 

violence break the cycle of violence; and $10 million for new School Safety and 

Preparedness awards to LEAs to support the development and implementation of highquality school emergency operations plans at the local level. Funds would also be used to 

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

Response to Violence), and for dissemination, outreach, and related forms of technical 

assistance.

• $128 million for the Promise Neighborhoods program, a $55 million increase, to support 

grants to community-based organizations for comprehensive neighborhood programs and 

supports designed to combat the effects of poverty and improve educational and life 

outcomes for children and youth. Funds would support an estimated 15 new 

implementation grants and 6 continuation awards and, to ensure that grantees under the 

program continue to use and build evidence, expanded technical assistance to grantees in 

the use of data collection and analysis in their decision-making and to evaluate the 

implementation and impact of program activities.

• Level funding of $10 million for the Full-Service Community Schools program, which 

provides grants to LEAs supporting local efforts to focus resources and streamline

duplicative or disconnected programs into “place-based” services in the school setting that 

provide needed academic, social, and health supports, thereby yielding better coordinated 

strategies that can more meaningfully impact neighborhoods with high rates of poverty, 

childhood obesity, academic failure, and involvement of community members in the justice 

system. The 2017 request would support continuation awards to nine grantees.

No funds are requested for the Elementary and Secondary School Counseling or Physical 

Education programs because these programs no longer are authorized by the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act.

D-8
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Activities:

School safety national activities

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part F, Subpart 3, Section 4631)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: $5,0001

Budget Authority: 

2016 2017 Change

$75,000 $90,000 +$15,000

1 A total of $220,741 thousand is authorized for Part F of Title IV. Of the funds appropriated for Part F, $5,000 

thousand is reserved under section 4601(b)(1) to carry out the School Safety National Activities under Subpart 3 

(section 4631).

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA) reauthorized the Safe and Drug-Free Schools 

and Communities (SDFSC) National Activities under the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965 (ESEA) into a broad discretionary authority that authorizes activities to improve 

students’ safety and well-being, during and after the school day. Prior to the reauthorization, 

these activities were more generally limited to those designed to prevent the illegal use of drugs 

and violence among, and promote safety and positive school environments for, students. 

Activities under the reauthorized program may be carried out through grants, contracts, or 

cooperative agreements with public and private organizations or individuals, or through 

agreements with other Federal agencies. 

The reauthorization also incorporated the longstanding Project School Emergency Response to 

Violence (Project SERV) program into the ESEA. Project SERV, which previously was 

authorized through appropriations language, provides education-related services—including 

counseling and referral to mental health services as needed—to local educational agencies and 

institutions of higher education in which the learning environment has been disrupted by a 

violent or traumatic crisis. 

In recent years SDFSC National Activities, in addition to Project SERV, have included:

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

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

of the best evidence-based behavioral practices for improving school climate and behavioral 

outcomes for all students.

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

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

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

D-9
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

School safety national activities

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

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

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

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

bullying, violence, and gang involvement.

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

improve their emergency management plans.

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

improving student safety and reducing drug abuse through measurement systems that 

assess conditions for learning, which must include school safety, and the implementation of 

programmatic interventions that address problems identified by data. 

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

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

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

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

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

2016.............................................................75,000

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The 2017 request includes $90 million for School Safety National Activities, an increase of 

$15 million over the 2016 level, to expand key elements of the President’s Now is the Time 

initiative (NITT). The Administration’s request also includes appropriations language overriding 

the authorization level for the program. The requested increase would be used for (1) a new 

round of Project Prevent grants to communities suffering from chronic violence and (2) a new 

School Safety and Preparedness grants competition supporting the development and 

implementation of high-quality school emergency operations plans at the local level. 

NITT was released in January 2013 following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings in 

Newtown, Connecticut, which took the lives of 20 children and 6 teachers. The initiative 

included common-sense proposals designed to protect our children and our communities by 

reducing gun violence, making schools safer, and increasing access to mental health services. 

Some of the NITT proposals were based, in part, on the findings of the Safe Schools Initiative, a 

collaboration between the U.S. Secret Service and the Department of Education in the wake of 

the 1999 Columbine tragedy that resulted in a guide published in July 2004, on managing 

threatening situations and creating safe school climates 

(https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/threatassessmentguide.pdf). This report includes 

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

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

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

school as well as between the school and the community.

D-10
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

School safety national activities

One of the activities the Department funded in 2014 under NITT was $13 million in grants to 

25 State educational agencies (SEAs) to increase their capacity to assist local educational 

agencies (LEAs) through training and technical assistance in the development and 

implementation of high-quality and comprehensive school emergency operations plans (EOPs). 

The Department learned through its administration of the State EOP grants that many LEAs lack 

the capacity to provide the support needed to develop and implement school-level EOPs. In the 

event of an emergency, an effective school-level EOP can literally be a matter of life and death 

for those involved. 

In addition, under NITT, the Administration developed a new generation of related resources 

that would have a much greater impact if disseminated more broadly to LEAs and schools. 

These resources include a Guide for Developing High-Quality School EOPs and assessment 

tools that LEAs and schools can use to measure (1) their emergency management capacity and 

(2) the quality and comprehensiveness of their EOPs. For fiscal year 2017, the Administration 

is proposing a new School Safety and Preparedness grants competition of nearly $10 million for 

LEAs that would highlight the availability of these resources and provide direct support to 

approximately 60 LEAs (and to hundreds of schools) in using them. 

The new competition would focus on building local capacity to create and sustain school-level 

EOPs as an essential element of effective school safety practices. In addition to direct grant 

assistance, the Budget includes $2.5 million to continue the Readiness and Emergency 

Management for Schools Technical Assistance Center that provides training and technical 

assistance to grantees and non-grantees alike, supporting emergency management efforts for 

schools, LEAs, and IHEs.

As part of NITT, the Department also funded Project Prevent grants to LEAs to help schools in 

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

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

development and can increase the likelihood that these children will later commit violent acts 

themselves. Being the victim of, or being exposed to, community violence in childhood is also 

associated with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Project Prevent addresses this problem 

by supporting the deployment of resources and technical assistance through local projects that 

increase the capacity of LEAs to identify, assess, and serve students exposed to pervasive 

violence, helping to ensure that affected students are offered mental health services for trauma 

or anxiety; support conflict resolution programs; and implement other school–based violence 

prevention strategies in order to reduce the likelihood that these students will later commit 

violent acts.

The Department made Project Prevent grants to 22 high-need communities in fiscal year 

2014. Unfortunately, recent events demonstrate the strong, continuing need for additional 

Project Prevent assistance, with many cities across the country experiencing record increases 

in homicides and other violence during 2015, with potentially traumatic effects on students and 

schools in the communities experiencing this violence. The budget request includes a total of 

$24.5 million for Project Prevent—$14.5 million in continuation awards for the 2014 cohort, and 

$10 million for a new cohort of an estimated 15 grantees.

D-11
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

School safety national activities

Other activities included in the 2017 request are designed to improve school climate and to 

restore the learning environment following a violent or traumatic incident. Key activities include 

the following:

• $46.5 million for School Climate Transformation Grant continuation awards, and related 

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

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

Grants, first awarded in fiscal year 2014, build on the development and testing of evidencebased, multi-tiered decision-making frameworks, such as Positive Behavioral Interventions 

and Supports, which provide differing levels of support and interventions to students based 

on their needs. The 2017 request would fund the fourth year of 5-year grants to State 

educational agencies and local educational agencies, which are used for such activities as 

implementing data tracking systems; selecting the most appropriate programs to address 

students’ needs; implementing the selected programs with fidelity; and purchasing 

associated programmatic materials.

• $3 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 IHEs in which the learning environment has been disrupted due to a violent or traumatic 

crisis. Consistent with previous appropriations for this activity, funds for Project SERV are 

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

expended.

• $3.5 million for the National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments (NCSSLE), 

an increase of $1 million over the 2016 level. The NCSSLE provides technical assistance to 

SEAs and LEAs, as well as to institutions of higher education, relating to alcohol and drug 

use and violence prevention at the elementary, secondary, and postsecondary levels; 

supports the collection and dissemination of information and best practices on improving 

school climate; provides technical assistance to the Project Prevent grantees to strengthen 

the implementation of their projects; and will provide technical assistance to LEAs and 

schools that utilize the model school climate survey, to be released by the National Center 

for Education Statistics in 2016, in selecting and implementing programs, policies, and 

practices that are responsive to the survey results. The increased funding would be focused 

on technical assistance to LEAs on the selection and implementation of evidence-based 

substance abuse prevention programs.

D-12
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

School safety national activities

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

School Safety and Preparedness 

Activities 

 Grant award funds (new) 0 0 $9,742

 Peer review of new award applications 0 0 150

 Technical assistance center $2,500 $2,250 2,500 School Emergency M anagement Acti viti es:

ool Safety and Prepar edness Acti viti es Total 2,500 2,250 12,392

 Number of LEA awards 0 0 60

 Range of awards 0 0 $100-$500

 Average award 0 0 $162

Project Prevent

 Grant award funds (new) 0 0 $9,900

 Grant award funds (continuation) $14,625 $14,574 14,521

 Supplemental grant award funds for arts 

education activities

0 500 0

Peer review of new award applications 0 0 100 Project Prevent:

 Total 14,625 15,074 24,521

Project Prevent:

Number of LEA awards (new) 0 0 15 Project Prevent: 

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

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

Average award $665 $685 $660

School Climate Transformation Grants

School Climate Tr ansformati on Gr ants: 

SEA grant award funds (continuation) $7,422 $7,529 $7,581 School Climate Tr ansformati on Gr ants: 

LEA grant award funds (continuation) 36,193 36,449 35,881 School Climate Tr ansformati on Gr ants:

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

 Total 46,695 47,058 46,461 School Climate Tr ansformati on Gr ants: 

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

Range of SEA awards $252-$750 $256-$750 $259-$750 School Climate Tr ansformati on Gr ants:

Average SEA award $619 $627 $632

 Number of LEA awards (continuation) 71 70 70 School Climate Tr ansformati on Gr ants:

Range of LEA awards $161-$750 $186-$750 $178-$750 School Climate Tr ansformati on Gr ants: 

Average LEA award $510 $521 $513

D-13
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

School safety national activities

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

School Emergency Response to 

Violence (Project SERV) $2,626 $2,592 $3,000

Evaluation $500 0 0

Other Activities

National Center for Safe Supportive

 Learning Environments $2,500 $2,500 $3,500

 Grants to Assist Communities with

 Significant Civil Unrest 0 5,000 0 Other Acti viti es: 

Other data collection, dissemination,

 outreach, and assistance 554 525 125

 Other Acti vities: Total 3,054 8,025 3,625

NOTE: Appropriations language for fiscal years 2015 and 2016 authorized the Department to pool evaluation 

funds reserved under section 9601 of the ESEA and use those pooled funds to evaluate any ESEA program. Similar 

authority was included in the ESEA as reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (section 8601) and 

would provide the same flexibility in fiscal year 2017. While the Department did not reserve funds from School Safety 

National Activities under this authority in fiscal year 2015, it may do so in fiscal years 2016 and 2017. 

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 2017 and future years, and the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

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

performance reports.

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

capacity of LEAs to improve behavioral and learning outcomes of students through the 

implementation of multi-tiered behavioral frameworks.

Objective: LEA School Climate Transformation grantees will demonstrate substantial progress 

in decreasing disciplinary actions and increasing attendance through the use of multi-tiered 

behavioral frameworks.

D-14
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

School safety national activities

Measure: The number and percentage of schools annually that are implementing the multitiered behavioral framework with fidelity.

Year Number

Target

Number

Actual

Percentage

Target

Percentage

Actual

2015 512 45%

2016 589 52%

2017 677 59%

Additional information: Targets represent an annual increase of 15 percent

The Department will have 2015 data later in 2016 on the following additional measures for the 

2014 cohort of LEA School Climate Transformation Grants:

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

referrals.

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

attendance rate.

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

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

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

capacity of SEAs to support LEAs to improve behavioral and learning outcomes of 

students through the implementation of multi-tiered behavioral frameworks.

Objective: SEA School Climate Transformation grantees will demonstrate substantial progress 

in increasing the capacity of LEAs in implementing a multi-tiered behavioral framework.

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

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

framework.

Year Target Actual

2015 374

2016 449

2017 539

Additional information: Targets represent an annual increase of 20 percent. Numbers in the 

chart reflect trainings only.

D-15
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

School safety national activities

The Department will have 2015 data later in 2016 on the following additional measures for the 

2014 cohort of SEA School Climate Transformation Grants:

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

School Climate Transformation Grant Program that report an improvement in knowledge 

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

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

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

behavioral framework.

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

capacity of LEAs in communities with pervasive violence to better address the needs of 

affected students and to break the cycle of violence.

Objective: Project Prevent grantees will demonstrate substantial progress in decreasing 

student violent and related behavior, increasing student access to mental health services, and 

increasing student engagement.

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

2014 cohort of Project Prevent Grants:

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

disruptive behavior in schools served by the grant.

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

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

to address student needs resulting from exposure to violence.

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

students served by the grant. 

Goal: To help ensure that SEAs increase their capacity to assist LEAs to develop highquality emergency operations plans.

Objective: SEA Emergency Management grantees will demonstrate substantial progress in 

increasing the number of LEAs with high-quality emergency operations plans.

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

Grants to States for Emergency Management:

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

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

D-16
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

School safety national activities

Other Performance Information

In fiscal year 2015, the Department initiated a study to examine how States and school districts 

that participate in the School Climate Transformation Grant programs are coordinating services 

and supports with grantees funded through the Department of Health and Human Services’ 

Project Advancing Wellness and Resilience in Education (Project AWARE) and the Department 

of Justice’s Keeping Kids in School and Out of Court programs. The study is informed by 

telephone interviews with State and local grantees, and will report on ways in which grantees 

coordinate services, the benefits they experience from coordination, and challenges and 

lessons learned. A final report is scheduled for completion in fall 2017.

D-17
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Elementary and secondary school counseling

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority: 

2016 2017 Change

$49,561 0 -$49,561

1 The authorization for the program was repealed, effective October 1, 2016, by P.L. 114-95.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, which reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, did not reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary School Counseling 

(ESSC) program. However, the 2016 Department of Education Appropriations Act included a 

final appropriation for the ESSC program that will be sufficient to fully fund continuation costs for 

all current grantee projects in fiscal year 2016. 

The ESSC program provided grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) to establish or expand 

elementary and secondary school counseling programs. In awarding grants, the Department 

gave consideration to applications that demonstrated the greatest need for services, proposed 

the most promising and innovative approaches, and showed the greatest potential for replication 

and dissemination. The Department awarded grants for up to 3 years that provided up to 

$400,000 annually and were required to supplement, not supplant, existing counseling and 

mental health services. The statute required the Department to use the first $40 million in 

annual appropriations for elementary school counseling programs; appropriations exceeding 

$40 million could be used to support elementary or secondary school counseling programs. 

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

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

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

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

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

2016.............................................................49,561

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

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

Counseling program for fiscal year 2017, consistent with the elimination of this program by the 

Every Student Succeeds Act. Instead, the activities that have been funded under ESSC, along 

D-18
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Elementary and secondary school counseling

with others promoting the health and well-being of students, are included as authorized activities 

under Part A of Title IV (Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants) of the reauthorized 

ESEA. 

The Administration recognizes the importance of supporting school counselors. 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. States and 

LEAs may choose to dedicate resources to address these issues through flexible funding 

received under the Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants program for which the 

Administration is requesting $500 million in fiscal year 2017.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 2016 footnote2017 footnote

Grant award funding (new) $24,95410 0

Grant award funding (continuations) $27,555 $49,561 0

Number of new awards 70 0 0

Number of continuations 76 110 0

Average grant award $361 $361 0

NOTE: Appropriations language for fiscal years 2015 and 2016 authorized the Department to pool evaluation 

funds reserved under section 9601 of the ESEA and use those pooled funds to evaluate and ESEA program. Similar 

authority was included in the ESEA as reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (section 8601) and 

would provide the same flexibility in fiscal year 2017. While the Department did not reserve funds from the 

Elementary and Secondary School Counseling program under this authority in fiscal year 2015, it may do so in fiscal 

year 2016. 1 Reflects a one-time reprogramming of $2,948 thousand from the Physical Education Program.

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 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.

D-19
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Elementary and secondary school counseling

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

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

statute.

Year

2011 

Cohort 

Target

2011 

Cohort 

Actual

2012 

Cohort

Target

2012 

Cohort

Actual

2013 

Cohort 

Target

2013 

Cohort 

Actual

2014 

Cohort 

Target

2014 

Cohort 

Actual

2012 100% 84%

2013 100 88 100% 93%

2014 100 100 95 100% 77%

2015 100 100 94 100 97

2016 100 100

2017 100

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

This is due to the fact that the Department granted many grantees in year 3 of their awards a 

1-year, no-cost extension to complete their projects. The Department expects to have 2014 

cohort data available in fall 2015.

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

participating in the Elementary and Secondary School Counseling program.

Year

2011 

Cohort 

Target

2011 

Cohort 

Actual

2012 

Cohort

Target

2012 

Cohort

Actual

2013 

Cohort 

Target

2013 

Cohort 

Actual

2014 

Cohort 

Target

2014 

Cohort 

Actual

2012 1,200 1,152

2013 1,037 690 1,589

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

2015 1,007 988 1,096 1,615

2016 908 1,552

2017

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

Department plans to establish performance targets for the 2015 cohort once grantees submit 

baseline data.

D-20
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Physical education program

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority:

P2016 2017 Change

$47,000 0 -$47,000

1 The authorization for the program was repealed, effective October 1, 2016, by P.L. 114-95.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA), which reauthorized the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965, did not reauthorize the Physical Education Program (PEP). 

PEP provides competitive grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) and community-based 

organizations (CBOs) to pay the Federal share of the costs of initiating, expanding, and 

improving physical education (PE) programs, including after-school programs, for students in 

kindergarten through 12th grade, in order to help those students make progress toward meeting 

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

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

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

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

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

State, and local funding for PE activities. 

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

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

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

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

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

2016.............................................................47,000

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting funding for PEP for fiscal year 2017. With the enactment of 

the Every Student Succeeds Act, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) no 

longer includes authorization for PEP. The 2016 Department of Education Appropriations Act 

included a final appropriation for PEP that will be sufficient to fully fund all current grantee 

projects, including those with project periods extending beyond fiscal year 2016. 

D-21
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Physical education program

The activities that have been funded under PEP, along with others promoting the health and 

well-being of students, are included as authorized activities under Part A of Title IV (Student 

Support and Academic Enrichment Grants) of the reauthorized ESEA. 

The Administration recognizes the importance of PE, improved nutrition, and fitness. According 

to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), childhood obesity has more than 

doubled in children and quadrupled in adolescents in the past 30 years, a major cause for 

concern since obese youth are more likely than their peers to develop high blood pressure, high 

cholesterol, type 2 diabetes, and breathing problems as adults. More than one third of children 

and adolescents were overweight or obese in 2012. According to the 2011-12 National Survey 

of Children’s Health conducted by the CDC, over one-third of children ages 6-17 engaged in 

vigorous physical activity 3 or fewer days per week. States and LEAs may choose to dedicate 

resources to address these issues through flexible funding received under the Student Support 

and Academic Enrichment Grants program for which the Administration is requesting 

$500 million in fiscal year 2017.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 footnote2016 footnote2017 footnote

Grant award funding (new) 0 $23,724 0

Grant award funding (continuations) $44,052 1 23,276 0

Peer review of new award applications 0 0 0

Number of new grant awards 0 15 2 0

Number of continuation grant awards 126 67 0

Average grant award $350 $420 0

NOTE: Appropriations language for fiscal years 2015 and 2016 authorized the Department to pool evaluation 

funds reserved under section 9601 of the ESEA and use those pooled funds to evaluate any ESEA program. Similar 

authority was included in the ESEA as reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (section 8601) and 

would provide the same flexibility in fiscal year 2017. While the Administration did not reserve funds from PEP under 

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

1 Reflects a one-time reprogramming of $2,948 thousand to the Elementary and Secondary School Counseling 

program. 2 The Department intends to frontload, or fully fund from fiscal year 2016 appropriations, any new awards it 

makes in fiscal year 2016, consistent with transition requirements in section 4(a)(1)(A)(i) of the ESSA.

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 

D-22
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Physical education program

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

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years, and the resources and efforts 

invested by those served by this program. 

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

Objective: Support the implementation of effective physical education programs and 

strategies.

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

of daily physical activity.

Year

2010

Cohort

Target

2010

Cohort

Actual

2011 

Cohort 

Target

2011

Cohort

Actual

2012

Cohort

Target

2012

Cohort 

Actual

2013

Cohort

Target

2013

Cohort 

Actual

2014

Cohort

Target

2014

Cohort 

Actual

2012 68% 46% 30%

2013 69% 55 42 34 31%

2014 45% 35% 39 42 34%

2015 38 41 45% 45 35

2016 49 38%

2017 40

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

cardiovascular fitness levels.

Year

2010

Cohort

Target

2010

Cohort

Actual

2011 

Cohort 

Target

2011

Cohort

Actual

2012

Cohort

Target

2012

Cohort 

Actual

2012 55% 44% 56%

2013 57% 59 47 59

2014 49% 60% 62

2015 64 66

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

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

least five of the six fitness areas of that assessment.

Year

2013

Cohort

Target

2013

Cohort 

Actual

2014

Cohort

Target

2014

Cohort 

Actual

2013 24%

2014 30 25%

2015 32% 37 27

2016 34 30%

2017 38 33

D-23
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Physical education program

Additional information: In the fiscal year 2013 competition, the Department revised one of 

the measures. The new measure is replacing the second measure regarding age-appropriate 

cardiovascular fitness level, with a more comprehensive measure of fitness: the percentage of 

students served by the grant who meet the standard of a healthy fitness zone as established 

by the assessment for the Presidential Youth Fitness Program in at least five of the six fitness 

areas of that assessment. 

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

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

Year

2010

Cohort

Target

2010

Cohort

Actual

2011 

Cohort 

Target

2011

Cohort

Actual

2012

Cohort

Target

2012

Cohort 

Actual

2013

Cohort

Target

2013

Cohort 

Actual

2014

Cohort

Target

2014

Cohort 

Actual

2012 41% 39% 25%

2013 43% 42 53 30 28%

2014 55% 32% 38 41 15%

2015 35 41 44% 48 18

2016 48 22%

2017 26

Additional information: The Department expects to have final data for the 2011 cohort for the 

above measures in early 2016. The lag in reporting data is due to the fact that, each year, the 

Department provides many grantees in year 3 of their awards a 1-year, no-cost extension to 

complete their projects. Starting with the 2012 cohort, the Department required grantees to 

report full performance data at the end of year 3, which eliminated the lag in reporting each 

cohort’s year 3 aggregated data. Data for 2016 for the 2013 and 2014 cohorts are expected in 

late 2016. 

Efficiency Measure

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

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

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

Year

2010

Cohort

Target

2010

Cohort

Actual

2011 

Cohort 

Target

2011

Cohort

Actual

2012

Cohort

Target

2012

Cohort 

Actual

2013

Cohort

Target

2013

Cohort 

Actual

2014

Cohort

Target

2014

Cohort 

Actual

2011 $884

2012 880 $811

2013 $750 800 425 $347

2014 $400 $300 328 $488

2015 280 231 $450 409 $541

2016 400 $500

2017 450

D-24
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Physical education program

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

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

Other Performance Information

In February 2015, the Department released an implementation study of the 2010 cohort of PEP 

grantees. The report can be accessed at: http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/other/physicaleducation/carol-m-white-2015-full-report.pdf. Key findings included the following:

Physical Activity and Nutrition Policies

Most grantees focused on improving the implementation of, and enhancing, existing policies 

rather than developing new ones. Grantees reported implementing activities and policy actions 

that addressed physical activity (including PE) more often than nutrition activities and policy 

actions. Most common among grantee activities was making significant changes to physical 

activity policies concerning the use of a standards-based sequential PE curriculum and to 

policies involving recommendations or offers of physical activity through before- or after-school 

programs. Approximately one-third of grantees made significant changes to nutrition policies 

aimed at reducing the availability of foods of minimal nutritional value, restricting the marketing 

of unhealthy foods at school, and requiring the adoption and implementation of strong nutritional 

standards for all foods sold and served in schools. Many grantees reported revisiting, during 

the course of their PEP grants, the results from the CDC self-assessment tools to further hone 

project plans and address areas of concern. 

Partnerships

The vast majority of the grantees developed multi-party partnerships in their communities, at 

least partly because of competitive preference points for such partnerships in the 

2010 competition. The majority of grantees that formed partnerships reported that their 

community partners were most involved in providing nutrition-related support. Most grantees 

that formed partnerships reported that their PEP community partnerships were valuable, with 

the most common benefits being access to additional (nonmonetary) resources and the ability to 

learn from their partners. Grantees also found that partnerships helped by: strengthening and 

improving communication among existing relationships; increasing student engagement; 

networking and providing access to resources and information; and extending the reach of 

health, physical fitness, and nutrition activities and knowledge. The two most common 

challenges with partnerships were difficulty coordinating meetings and activities, and the 

diversion of time and resources away from other priorities or obligations of the PEP grant.

Body Mass Index Data

The vast majority of PEP grantees in the 2010 cohort had also applied under a competitive 

preference priority for project plans that included aggregate body mass index (BMI) data 

collection to monitor their student populations’ weight status over time as part of a 

comprehensive assessment of student health and fitness. Most grantees reported using, or 

planning to use, BMI data in the aggregate to assess the weight status of the student population 

D-25
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Physical education program

over time, to assess project outcomes, and to inform physical activity and nutrition program 

planning. Grantees also used BMI data as a screening tool. A majority of grantees that 

collected BMI data provided, or planned to provide, parents with information about their 

children’s BMI to help them take appropriate action, but experienced some challenges in 

communicating data to parents. According to case study interviews, stakeholders, including 

parents, students, and PEP project personnel, had mixed views about the BMI, ranging from 

support to doubts about the validity of the measure. The Department is no longer including BMI 

in the PEP grant competition, but some LEAs still choose to use BMI.

Challenges

The most common implementation challenge experienced by grantees involved using the 

required data collection instruments (e.g., pedometers, student self-reports) to address the 

performance measures. The most commonly reported challenges in collecting the performance 

measures were the lack of proper data collection or reporting by students, malfunctioning/faulty 

equipment, and loss or theft of equipment. Grantees described strategies to address these 

challenges related to data collection, including limiting the use of pedometers to school instead 

of allowing students to take them home, developing clear data collection protocols and time 

lines, and involving other staff members to facilitate data collection. Grantees generally 

acknowledged the importance of and made efforts toward increasing buy-in from students, 

parents, teachers, and partners. The study also found that Congressional Budget Office 

grantees reported greater difficulty implementing various components of their PEP projects than 

district grantees.

Conclusion

The study’s findings suggest that grantees might benefit from additional support and technical 

assistance with (1) data collection; (2) communicating and coordinating with partners; 

(3) promoting healthy eating and nutrition; and (4) using BMI data, including communicating with 

parents.

D-26
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Promise neighborhoods

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part F, Subpart 2, Section 4624)

(dollars in thousands) 

FY 2017 Authorization: (1)

Budget Authority: 

2016 2017 Change

$73,254 $128,000 +$54,746

1 A total of $200,741 thousand is authorized for Part F of Title IV. Of the total amount appropriated for Title IV, 

Part F, 36 percent is available for the Promise Neighborhoods and Full-Service Community Schools Grants programs 

under Subpart 2.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Promise Neighborhoods program provides competitive grants to support distressed 

communities in implementing a comprehensive, effective continuum of coordinated services 

designed to improve the academic and developmental outcomes for children, youth, and their 

families from birth through college. The program is authorized by Subpart 2 of Part F of Title IV 

of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds 

Act of 2015 (ESSA). Prior to enactment of the ESSA, the program was funded under the broad 

authority of Title V, Part D, Subpart 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (Fund for 

the Improvement of Education). 

The program makes 5-year awards that enable grantees to provide continua of services and 

supports appropriate to the needs of children and youth within the target neighborhood, 

specifically in neighborhoods with high rates of poverty, childhood obesity, academic failure, and 

involvement of community members in the justice system. The program also gives priority to 

neighborhoods with schools implementing comprehensive or targeted improvement activities 

under Title I, Part A of the ESEA. Grants may be extended an additional 2 years. Required 

activities for grantees include: (1) planning activities to develop and implement pipeline 

services; (2) implementing those pipeline services; and (3) continuously evaluating and 

improving their programs based on outcome data. “Pipeline services” means a continuum of 

coordinated supports, services, and opportunities for children from birth through entry into and 

success in postsecondary education and career attainment, and includes, at a minimum: highquality early childhood programs; high-quality school and out-of-school programs and 

strategies; transition support for children between elementary and middle school, middle and 

high school, and high school and postsecondary education and the workforce; family and 

community engagement support; activities that prepare students for postsecondary education

and the workforce, such as job training, internships, and career counseling; support for students 

that encourages continued connection to their communities; social, health, nutrition, and mental 

health services and supports; and juvenile crime prevention and rehabilitation programs. 

D-27
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Promise neighborhoods

Grantees must use at least 50 percent of their first-year awards, and at least 25 percent of their 

second-year awards, for planning activities to develop and implement pipeline services.

Eligible organizations for Promise Neighborhoods grants are institutions of higher education

(IHEs), Indian tribes or tribal organizations, or one or more non-profit organizations in 

partnership with a high-need local educational agency, IHE, local government, or an Indian tribe 

or tribal organization.

In awarding Promise Neighborhoods grants, the Department gives priority to applicants that 

incorporate evidence-based activities into their proposals. To ensure that grantees under this 

program continue to use and build evidence, the Administration reserves up to 5 percent of the 

Promise Neighborhoods appropriation for technical assistance and to evaluate the 

implementation and impact of program activities. In addition, grantees are required to report 

publicly information about their projects, including the number and percentage of children 

participating in their programs and progress on performance metrics.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

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

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

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

2015.............................................................56,754

2016.............................................................73,254

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $128 million in fiscal year 2017 for Promise Neighborhoods, an 

increase of $54.7 million over the 2016 appropriation. The request includes appropriations 

language that would override the combined authorization level for this program and the FullService Community Schools program. Fiscal year 2017 funds would support an estimated 

15 new grants as well as 5 continuation awards for the 2016 cohort of implementation grantees. 

Funds would also be used to expand technical assistance to grantees. 

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

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

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

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

Research studies and data have shown that children in poverty, especially concentrated 

poverty, are more likely than their more affluent peers to face mental and physical health 

challenges; to have poor nutrition and exercise habits; to move homes and change schools; to 

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

concern. These factors are known to lead to negative educational, social, and economic 

outcomes. Promise Neighborhoods grants help such communities develop and implement a 

concentrated and comprehensive approach to surmounting these challenges, instead of the 

D-28
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Promise neighborhoods

typically fragmented approach taken by other Federal, State, and local anti-poverty and social 

welfare programs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

implementation grantees began implementing their approved plans in 2010. Still, grantees 

report early successes as they work to establish the necessary systems, programs, and 

infrastructure for wide-scale improvement in outcomes within their neighborhoods. Many 

grantees report increased efforts to (1) engage parents in the communities, (2) improve the 

health and environmental conditions for community members, (3) coordinate high-quality early 

childhood services, and (4) establish programs that create a bridge between high school and 

postsecondary educational and career opportunities. 

The demand for Promise Neighborhood grants has greatly exceeded available funding, and the 

fiscal year 2016 appropriation included the first increase (+$16.5 million) in funding since fiscal 

year 2012. The 2017 request would build on this renewed commitment to addressing deeprooted educational, social, health, and economic challenges in some of our Nation’s poorest and 

most distressed communities. In particular, the almost 40 communities that have received 

planning grants, but not implementation grants, represent a pool of potential high-quality 

candidates for implementation grants in fiscal year 2017. The Administration also believes that 

a larger Federal investment in Promise Neighborhoods will help attract non-Federal financial 

support from philanthropies, private sources, and other governmental entities, all of which 

previously have demonstrated support for the Promise Neighborhoods model. 

Additionally, to maximize benefits from existing Federal funding, the Department has begun 

work with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to ensure coordination 

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

Neighborhoods planning grants. Specifically, the Department intends to invest a small portion 

of its fiscal year 2016 appropriation in joint planning grants with Choice Neighborhoods, while 

still retaining the focus on awarding the majority of funding to new implementation grants.

Promise Neighborhoods is a cornerstone program of the Administration’s Promise Zones 

initiative. This initiative brings together the work of 13 Federal agencies, and is intended to lead 

to the revitalization of many of America’s highest poverty urban, rural, and tribal communities by 

creating jobs, attracting private investment, increasing economic activity, expanding educational 

opportunity, and reducing violent crime, among other locally defined goals. Designated areas 

receive proposed tax incentives to stimulate economic activity and create jobs, intensive 

Federal technical assistance aimed at breaking down regulatory barriers and using existing 

D-29
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Promise neighborhoods

Federal funds in effective ways, and competitive preference points for other Federal 

discretionary grant programs that will contribute to the Promise Zones goal attainment. The 

President launched the Promise Zones initiative in January 2014, by designating five Promise 

Zones. Another eight Zones were designated in April 2015, and the Administration will 

designate the final seven Zones in 2016, selecting high-poverty communities demonstrating 

high capacity to engage partners and leverage resources. Promise Zones identify a set of 

cross-sector goals for their proposed Zone and its residents, and then develop inter-sector 

strategies, leverage private investment, and work with Federal liaisons to align Federal, State, 

local, and Tribal resources to achieve their defined goals. 

Beginning in fiscal year 2014, the Department developed a priority for programs and projects 

that support activities in designated Promise Zones. The Department will use this priority in the 

fiscal years 2016 and 2017 Promise Neighborhoods competitions. In addition, the Department 

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

proposing to work in tribal communities. Beginning in fiscal year 2017, the Department will 

require that at least 15 percent of funding for new awards made under Title IV, Part F, Subpart 2 

(which includes Promise Neighborhoods and Full-service Community Schools) supports 

projects in rural areas, assuming that these programs receive applications of sufficient number 

and quality from applicants in rural areas.

The Department would retain up to 5 percent of the annual appropriation to provide technical 

assistance and evaluate the implementation and impact of grant activities.

The Department would also continue support for technical assistance for the Building 

Neighborhood Capacity Program (BNCP). The goal of BNCP is to provide support for lowincome neighborhoods to build the infrastructure and access the resources needed to improve 

individual and family outcomes in areas such as education, employment, safety, and housing. 

BNCP helps neighborhoods develop the knowledge, skills, relationships, interactions and 

organizational resources that enable residents, civic leaders, the public and private sectors, and 

local organizations to create and pursue results-driven neighborhood revitalization 

plans. Established in 2011, BNCP continues to grow, catalyzing community-driven change in 

neighborhoods that have historically faced barriers to revitalization. BNCP launched in 

eight neighborhoods in August 2012 and expanded to an additional four in January 2015.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

Grants

Number of new awards 0 5 15

Funding for new awards 0 $29,799 $86,720

Number of continuing awards 12 7 6

Funding for continuing awards $54,480 37,060 33,600

Joint Planning Grants with HUD 0 $2,000 0

D-30
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Promise neighborhoods

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

Evaluation

Technical assistance $1,200 $1,360 $2,950

BNCP 0 500 500

Data and evaluation assistance 1,074 1,802 2,950

Peer review of new award applications 0 733 1,280

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

The Administration established 15 performance measures for implementation grantees in 

previous competitions. Data from the first cohort of implementation grantees became available 

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

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

collection, bolstered by additional technical assistance, led to much-improved data for year 2 of 

the first cohort of grantees, and the second cohort of implementation grantees has benefitted 

greatly from this guidance and technical assistance. In particular, the second cohort of 

implementation grantees has been able to report baseline data following its first year of project 

implementation, and most grantees are now able to provide comparable data on the measures 

for student proficiency on State assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics; 

average daily attendance; and chronic absenteeism. Specifically, the second cohort of 

implementation grantees has made positive progress on five of the eight measures for which 

aggregate data are available. The efforts of implementation grantees from the second cohort 

may have led to the following impacts from 2013 to 2014: an increase of 5 percentage points in 

English/language arts scores in high school grades; an increase of 10 percentage points in 

math scores in elementary grades; a decrease of 6 percentage points in chronic absenteeism 

for students attending schools within a Promise Neighborhood; a decrease of 5 percentage 

points in student mobility in schools within a Promise Neighborhood; and an increase of 

5 percentage points in parents residing in a Promise Neighborhood who reportedly encourage 

their children to read.

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

assistance to grantees on data collection and reporting. This assistance includes refining and 

improving grantee performance measures, data collection strategies, data analyses, and 

meeting reporting requirements. Beginning in 2014, all implementation grantees are using the 

Promise Neighborhoods Scorecard to report their data and information on the solutions they are 

implementing. By the end of 2015, all grantees put in place data plans to address critical issues 

like parental consent and Institutional Review Boards. In addition, beginning in fiscal year 2017, 

grantees will be required to report publicly information about their projects, including the number 

and percentage of children participating in their programs and progress on performance metrics.

D-31
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Full-service community schools

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part F, Subpart 2, Section 4625)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: (1)

Budget Authority: 

2016 2017 Change

$10,000 $10,000 0

1 A total of $200,741 thousand is authorized for Part F of Title IV. Of the total amount appropriated for Title IV, 

Part F, 36 percent is available for the Full-Service Community Schools and Promise Neighborhoods programs under 

Subpart 2.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Full-Service Community Schools program, which previously operated under the broad 

authority of the Fund for the Improvement of Education, is authorized under Title IV, Part F of 

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as reauthorized by the Every Student 

Succeeds Act of 2015. The program provides grants to (1) local educational agencies (LEAs) or 

(2) the Bureau of Indian Education, in partnership with community-based organizations, 

nonprofit organizations, or other public or private entities. Full-service community schools 

provide comprehensive academic, social, and health services for students, students’ family 

members, and community members that will result in improved educational outcomes for 

children. Full-Service Community Schools grantees can enhance the impact of their services by 

focusing resources and integrating programs to implement coordinated strategies that can 

impact neighborhoods with high rates of poverty, childhood obesity, academic failure, and 

involvement of community members in the justice system.

Schools that receive program funds provide a base of support for students and their families by 

attending to academic, social, and health needs in the school setting. The Full-Service 

Community Schools program supports public elementary or secondary schools that provide 

such supports to children and families in high-poverty schools. Beginning in fiscal year 2017, 

the Department will require that at least 15 percent of funds awarded under Title IV, Part F, 

Subpart 2 (which includes Full-service Community Schools and Promise Neighborhoods) 

support projects in rural areas, assuming that these programs receive applications of sufficient 

number and quality from applicants in rural areas.

To ensure meaningful partnership with community-based organizations, nonprofit organizations, 

and other public or private entities, grantees under this program must secure matching funds 

from non-Federal sources to amplify and sustain project activities. The Department may not 

require that an applicant secure matching funds in an amount that exceeds the amount of the 

grant award, and the Department cannot consider an applicant’s ability to secure matching 

funds when making funding decisions. To increase the probability of positive impacts on target 

D-32
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Full-service community schools

populations, grantees under this program must implement evidence-based activities, evaluate 

the effectiveness of their projects, and comply with any evaluations of the Full-Service 

Community Schools program conducted by the Institute of Education Sciences.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2012 ...........................................................$10,094

2013 ...............................................................5,344

2014 .............................................................10,649

2015 ...............................................................9,710

2016 .............................................................10,000

 NOTE: Funds were provided under the Fund for the Improvement of Education Programs of National 

Significance.

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $10 million in fiscal year 2017 for Full-Service Community Schools, 

the same as the 2016 level. This request includes appropriations language that would override 

the combined authorized funding level for this program and the Promise Neighborhoods 

program. All requested funds would be used to pay continuation costs for prior-year grantees. 

The Harvard Family Research Project has cited compelling evidence that, when schools partner 

with families and community-based organizations, these partnerships may improve children’s 

development and school success (Harris & Wilkes, 2013). Building on this premise, FullService Community Schools grantees work to improve family and community engagement in 

school activities to improve student academic outcomes. For example, one 2010 grantee in 

Indiana used a research-based family engagement strategy called “Mind in the Making,” which 

involves a series of training sessions for family members that actively involves them in their 

children’s cognitive development and school readiness. This grantee also implemented a 

program that focused on family literacy—parents received support to improve their own reading 

skills, and in some cases earn high school equivalency certifications, while simultaneously 

helping their children learn to read. Another 2010 grantee implemented a set of strategies 

collectively referred to as “Baby University” that provided parents and caregivers of young 

children with culturally relevant, age-appropriate tools to prepare their children to be 

Kindergarten-ready. Fiscal year 2017 continuation awards would support 21 grantees that are 

implementing similar strategies to effect meaningful change for children and students in their 

communities.

D-33
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Full-service community schools

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

Number of new awards 12 0 0

Funding for new awards $5,590 0 0

Number of continuing awards 9 21 21

Funding for continuing awards $4,020 $10,000 $10,000

Peer review of new award applications 100 0 0

NOTE: Appropriations language for fiscal years 2015 and 2016 authorized the Department to pool evaluation 

funds reserved under section 9601 of the ESEA and use those pooled funds to evaluate any ESEA program. Similar 

authority was included in the ESEA as reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (section 8601) and 

would provide the same flexibility in fiscal year 2017. While the Department did not reserve funds from the FullService Community Schools program under this authority in fiscal year 2015, it may do so in fiscal years 2016 and 

2017.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including 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 2017 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served 

by this program. 

The Administration has established the following performance measure for grantees: 

Measure: The percentage of individuals targeted for services who receive services during each 

year of the project period.

 Year 2008 cohort 2010 cohort

2012 164% 166%

2013 Not available

2014 104

2015

2016

2017

Additional information: All grantees must submit an annual performance report documenting 

their contribution in assisting the Department in measuring the performance of the program 

against this indicator, as well as performance on project-specific indicators. The term 

“individuals targeted for services” is specific to each project; Full-Service Community Schools 

D-34
SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION

Full-service community schools

grantees may choose among 12 services to provide in their communities, and may target a 

different combination of students, parents, or community members depending on the services 

they provide. In 2012, 164 percent of targeted individuals for the 2008 cohort received services, 

meaning that grantees served targeted individuals in addition to individuals who had not 

previously been targeted. One grantee from the 2008 cohort served more than four times the 

number of targeted individuals; the lowest percentage of targeted individuals for any grantee in 

the 2008 cohort was 95 percent. Data from one grantee from the 2008 cohort were not 

available. One hundred sixty-six percent of targeted individuals from the 2010 cohort received 

services in 2012; one grantee provided services to more than three times the number of 

targeted individuals, and all but one grantee surpassed their targets. Data from one grantee 

from the 2010 cohort were not available. Aggregate data from 2013 were not available. In 

2014, the 2010 cohort again served more than 100 percent of the targeted individuals; this is 

due, in part, to one grantee serving more than four times the number of individuals it had 

originally targeted.

D-35