Department of Education

SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request

CONTENTS

Page

Summary of request:

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

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

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

Summary of Changes ............................................................................................................. F-4

Authorizing Legislation............................................................................................................ F-6

Appropriations History............................................................................................................. F-8

Significant Items in FY 2014 Appropriations Reports............................................................... F-9

Summary of Request ............................................................................................................ F-10

Activities:

Promise neighborhoods ..................................................................................................... F-13

Successful, safe, and healthy students .............................................................................. F-19

Safe and drug-free schools and communities national activities......................................... F-27

Elementary and secondary school counseling.................................................................... F-36

Physical education program ............................................................................................... F-40

21st Century community learning centers ........................................................................... F-46

State table*

*State tables reflecting 2014 allocations and 2015 estimates are 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

[SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP EDUCATION] SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS1

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

D of title V of the ESEA, $270,892,000: Provided, That $90,000,000 shall be available for 

subpart 2 of part A of title IV2

, of which up to $8,000,000, to remain available until expended, 

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

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

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

crisis3

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

shall be available through December 31, 20144.] (Department of Education Appropriations Act, 

2014.)

NOTES

No new 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.

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

Provisions and Changes document, which follows the appropriation language.
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

F-2

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1

[SAFE SCHOOLS AND CITIZENSHIP 

EDUCATION] SUPPORTING STUDENT 

SUCCESS

The Administration proposes to rename this 

account.

2

[Provided, That $90,000,000 shall be 

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

This language earmarks funds for Safe and 

Drug-Free Schools and Communities 

(SDFSC) National Programs (subpart 2 of 

part A of title IV).

3

[...of which up to $8,000,000, to remain 

available until expended, shall be for the 

Project School Emergency Response to 

Violence (‘‘Project SERV’’) program to 

provide education-related services to local 

educational agencies and institutions of 

higher education in which the learning 

environment has been disrupted due to a 

violent or traumatic crisis...]

This language earmarks funds for Project 

SERV (under SDFSC National Programs) 

and makes these funds available for 

obligation at the Federal level until they are 

expended.

4

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

available for Promise Neighborhoods and 

shall be available through December 31, 

2014.]

This language earmarks funds for the 

Promise Neighborhoods program, and gives 

the Department an additional 3 months 

beyond the end of fiscal year 2014 to 

obligate them.
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

F-3

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2013 2014 2015

Discretionary authority:

Discretionar y authority: Appropriation .......................................................... $255,753 $270,892 $1,463,370

Discretionar y authority: Across-the-board reduction (P.L.113-6) .................. -512 0 0

Total, discretionary appropriation...................... 255,241 0 0

Discretionar y authority: Sequester (P.L.112-25)........................................... -12,866 0 0

Total, adjusted discretionary appropriation ....... 242,375 270,892 1,463,370

Comparative transfer from

Education Improvement Programs for:

21st Century community learning centers 1,151,673 1,149,370 0

Total, comparable budget authority................ 1,407,426 1,420,262 1,463,370
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

F-4

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2014................................................................................................. $1,420,262

2015................................................................................................. 1,463,370

Net change ............................................................... +43,108

Increases: 2014 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. $56,754 +$43,246

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 +214,000

Subtotal, increases

+257,246

Decreases:

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.

90,000 -90,000
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

F-5

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

Decreases: 2014 base

Change 

from base

Program:

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.

$49,561 -$49,561

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. 74,577 -74,577

Subtotal, decreases -214,138

Net change +43,108
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

F-6

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2014

Authorized

Footnote

2014

Estimate

2015

Authorized

footnote

2015

Request

Promise neighborhoods (ESEA-V-D, Subpart 1) 01 $56,754 To be determined1 $100,000

Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students (proposed 

legislation) 0 0 To be determined 214,000

Safe and drug-free schools and communities national 

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

2, 3

90,000 0

2

0

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

Subpart 2) 0

2

49,561 0

2

0

Physical education program (ESEA-V-D, Subpart 10) 0274,577 0

2

0

21st century community learning centers (ESEA-IV-B) 01 1,149,370 To be determined1 1,149,370

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 1,420,262 1,463,370

Portion of the request subject to reauthorization 1,463,370
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Authorizing Legislation—continued

F-7

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2015. 2 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. The program is proposed for consolidation in FY 2015 under new legislation. 3 Funds appropriated for Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities National Programs in fiscal year 2014 may not be increased above the amount 

appropriated in fiscal year 2013 unless the amount appropriated for Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants in fiscal year 2014 is at least 

10 percent greater than the amount appropriated in 2013. 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-8

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget 

Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance

Footnote Senate 

Allowance

Footnote

Appropriation

Footnote

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

3

288,465

5

2012 1,781,132 65,000

6

270,463

6

255,753

2013 1,447,539 108,487

7

259,589

7

242,375

2014 1,831,673 N/A

8

330,481

3

270,892

2015 1,463,370

_________________

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

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

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

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

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

which proceeded in the 112th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the Senate Committee. 8 The House Allowance is shown as N/A because there was no Subcommittee action.
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

F-9

Significant Items in FY 2014 Appropriations Reports

Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities National Activities

Managers’

Statement: The Managers Statement accompanying P.L. 113-76 directs that within the 

30 days of enactment of the 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act the 

Department consult with the House and Senate Appropriations Committees on 

possible uses of the funds provided for Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 

Communities National Activities, and provide the Committees with an operating 

plan describing the Department’s planned use of those funds.

Response: The Department consulted with the Committees and will provide them the 

operating plan as requested.

21st Century Community Learning Centers

Senate: 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

S

ummary of request

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2015 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET 

Click here for accessible version 

(in thousands of dollars) 2015

Category 2013 2014 President's

Account, Program and Activity Code Appropriation Appropriation Budget Amount Percent

Supporting Student Success 

1. Promise Neighborhoods (ESEA V-D, subpart 1) D 56,754 56,754 100,000 43,246 76.199%

2. Successful, safe, and healthy students:

(a) Successful, safe, and healthy students (proposed legislation) D 0 0 214,000 214,000 ---

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

(ESEA IV-A-2, Subpart 2, sections 4121 and 4122) D 61,484 90,000 0 (90,000) -100.000%

(c) Elementary and secondary school counseling (ESEA V-D, subpart 2) D 49,561 49,561 0 (49,561) -100.000%

(d) Physical education program (ESEA V-D, subpart 10) D 74,577 74,577 0 (74,577) -100.000%

Subtotal 185,622 214,138 214,000 (138) -0.064%

 3. 21st century community learning centers (ESEA IV-B) D 1,091,564 1,149,370 1,149,370 0 0.000%

 Total 1 D 1,333,940 1,420,262 1,463,370 43,108 3.035%

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

- Programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act for which funds are requested or that are proposed for consolidation in FY 2015 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 2013 and FY 2014 have been adjusted for comparability to FY 2015.

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

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

1 Adjusted for comparability. Includes $1,091,564 thousand in FY 2013 and $1,149,370 thousand in FY 2014, appropriated in the School Improvement Programs account, now the Education Improvement Programs account.

Compared to 2014 Appropriation

2015 President's Budget 

F-10
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

F-11

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 2015 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:

• $100 million for the Promise Neighborhoods initiative, a $43 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. The Department has developed a priority for 

programs and projects that support activities in designated Promise Zones, which will be 

available for use in appropriate programs beginning in fiscal year 2014. The fiscal 

year 2015 competition for Promise Neighborhoods would include this priority.

• $214 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 

$214 million requested, $80 million would be used to carry out 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.

• $1.1 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,
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

F-12

Summary of Request

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 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 2015 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-13

Activities:

Promise neighborhoods

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

(dollars in thousands) 

FY 2015 Authorization: To be determined 1

Budget Authority:

PP2014 2015 Change

$56,754 $100,000 +$43,246

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2015.

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-14

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 nonprofit 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 as follows:

Year (dollars in thousands)

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

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

2012.............................................................59,877

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

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

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $100 million in fiscal year 2015 for Promise Neighborhoods, an 

increase of $43 million over the 2014 level. Fiscal year 2015 funds would support an estimated 

20 new planning grants and 5 new implementation grants as well as support for 

12 implementation grant continuation awards. Funds would also provide increased technical 

assistance to grantees. By providing an additional $200 million for Promise Neighborhoods, the 

Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative will support up to an additional 35 new 
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Promise neighborhoods

F-15

implementation grants. The 2015 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, 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 are factors known to lead to negative 

educational, social, and economic outcomes 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.

With a greater focus on leveraging existing Federal resources for efficiency and sustainability, 

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, (funding levels were insufficient for new awards in 2013 and 2014). The 

increased investment proposed for fiscal year 2015 would allow the Department to address 

some of this unmet need. In particular, the almost 40 communities that have received planning 

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

implementation grants in fiscal year 2015. The Department also believes that a larger Federal 

investment will help attract financial 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 work 

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

 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-16

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

Neighborhoods planning 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. Provided the data are of sufficient quality to use, the initial restricted-use 

data file of indicator and implementation data from grantees will likely be made available to 

researchers in spring 2015. 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 helps low-income neighborhoods build 

the infrastructure and access the resources needed to ensure residents and families experience 

better results around education, employment, safety, housing and other key areas. Established 

in 2011 as part of the White House Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative's (NRI) partnership 

between the Departments of Education, HUD, Justice, Health and Human Services, and 

Treasury, BNCP continues to grow, catalyzing community-driven change in neighborhoods that 

have historically faced barriers to revitalization. 

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

5 communities as Promise Zones. The Promise Zones Initiative builds on the work of the NRI 

and Strong Cities, Strong Communities (SC2). Promise Zones designations are intended to 

lead to the revitalization of 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 Ladders of 

Opportunity initiative, which is aimed at giving millions of hard-working Americans in highpoverty communities a leg up into the middle class. The Administration will designate an 

additional 15 Promise Zones in the year ahead, selecting communities that identify a set of 

positive outcomes for their proposed Zone and its residents, develop an evidence-based 

strategy and implementation plan, encourage private investment, and realign Federal, State, 

local, and Tribal resources to achieve those outcomes. The process ensures rural and Native 

American representation. The Budget request includes tax incentives to stimulate economic 

activity and create jobs within and around Promise Zones. Promise Zones will also receive 

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

existing Federal funds in more coordinated and effective ways. In addition, applicants from 

Promise Zones will receive competitive preference points for other Federal discretionary grant 

programs that will contribute to the Promise Zone goal attainment. The Department has 

developed a priority for programs and projects that support activities in designated Promise 

Zones, beginning in fiscal year 2014. The fiscal year 2015 competition for Promise 

Neighborhoods would include this priority.
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Promise neighborhoods

F-17

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Planning Grants

Number of new awards 0 0 20

Funding for new awards 0 0 $10,000

Implementation Grants

Number of new awards 0 0 5

Funding for new awards 0 0 $25,141

Number of continuing awards 12 12 12

Funding for continuing awards $54,640 $54,031 $59,859

National Activities

Technical assistance $846 $1,162 $2,900

BNCP $150 $271 $250

Data and evaluation assistance $930 $1,290 $1,200

Peer review of new award applications 0 0 $650

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

competition. Since a competition was not held in fiscal year 2013, no new data are available.

The Department 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 

became available in May 2013. In the first year, grantees had inconsistent data collection 

practices, however, the Department is currently reviewing the recently submitted data from year 

two and hopes that technical assistance efforts will have yielded data of sufficient quality for 

aggregation.

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

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

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

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

collection strategies, data analyses, and meeting reporting requirements. In 2014, all 
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Promise neighborhoods

F-18

implementation grantees will be using the Promise Neighborhoods Scorecard to report their 

data and information on the solutions they are implementing. Grantees will also have in place 

data plans to address critical issues like parental consent and Institutional Review Boards.

Other Performance Information

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

contributed fiscal year 2012 funds to an evaluation of SC2. SC2 is a Federal interagency 

initiative2 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 six pilot cities; a final report is expected to be available in April 2014.

The Department, working with other agencies across the Federal Government, is exploring 

ways to strengthen data capacity and conduct rigorous evaluations to understand the impacts of 

Promise Zones and other important cross-sector initiatives designed to improve outcomes for 

high-poverty communities and individuals living in those communities. A key focus will be on 

utilizing reliable administrative data sources at the Federal, State, and local level for measuring 

common outcomes across multiple sites, an approach that can enhance the quality of the 

evaluations while minimizing their costs.

 2 The following Federal agencies are participating in SC2: Housing and Urban Development, Commerce, 

Education, Labor, Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture, Justice, Health and Human 

Services, Small Business Administration, Treasury, Energy, Army Corps of Engineers, and the Corporation for 

National and Community Service. 
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

F-19

Successful, safe, and healthy students

(Proposed legislation)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: To be determined

Budget Authority: 

PP2014 2015 Change

0 $214,000 +$214,000

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 and 

physical health challenges; to have poor nutrition and exercise habits; to attend high-poverty, 

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-20

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-level activities and would 

be required to subgrant remaining 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 

Department 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 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $214 million in 2015 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 2015 is continued 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 $45 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. The Department would give priority to SEA and LEA applicants proposing to 

implement comprehensive strategies 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-based programs focused on 
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Successful, safe, and healthy students

F-21

social and emotional learning (SEL) have 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 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 “Now Is The Time,” his plan to reduce gun violence, 

make schools safer, and increase access to mental health services. Key elements of this plan 

were funded by the 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act, as described elsewhere in this 

account under Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities National Activities. The 

2015 request for National Activities funding would continue support for the plan’s commonsense proposals designed to create positive school climates and counter the effects of 

pervasive violence on students, including:

• $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. The School Climate Transformation Grants 

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

making 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 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. 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 

reduce problem behavior (as measured by office discipline referrals and suspension), 
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Successful, safe, and healthy students

F-22

decrease bullying and peer victimization, improve organizational health and perception 

of school as a safe setting, and increase 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 is working with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health 

Services Administration (SAMHSA) and Department of Justice to coordinate the 2014 

School Climate Transformation Grants competition with related activities at the other 

agencies so as to promote comprehensive State and local efforts to address school 

climate, school safety, and mental health needs. The 2015 School Climate 

Transformation Grants program will continue to support this interagency initiative.

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

pervasive violence break the cycle of violence. Research shows that both direct and 

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

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

acts themselves. Being the victim of, or being exposed to, community violence in 

childhood is also associated with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Project Prevent 

would address this problem by supporting the deployment of resources and technical 

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

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

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

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

school-based strategies to prevent future violence.

Other activities supported under the 2015 request for National Activities include:

• $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. 

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

Technical Assistance Center to provide resources and training to support school 

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

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

Successful, safe, and healthy students

F-23

• $4.6 million for other activities that promote safe and healthy students, including the 

following:

▬ $2.5 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; and 

would provide technical assistance to the Project Prevent grantees to strengthen the 

implementation of their projects.

▬ $2.1 million for other data collection, dissemination, outreach, and technical 

assistance activities that promote safe and healthy students.

The fiscal year 2015 request for Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students also would provide

$1.5 million for set-asides for Department of the Interior/Bureau of Indian Education schools and 

the Outlying Areas; $1 million for program evaluation; and approximately $79.4 million for 

continuation awards for projects originally funded under the following programs: Elementary 

and Secondary School Counseling ($30.1 million); Physical Education ($48.3 million); and the 

Education Facilities Clearinghouse ($1.0 million).

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2015 Footnote

Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students State and 

Local Grants

 Grant award funds (new) $44,500

 Peer review of new award applications 500

 nd Local Gr ants: Total budget authority 45,000

 Number of SEA awards 5

 Average SEA award $5,000

 Number of LEA awards 40

 Average LEA award $488
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Successful, safe, and healthy students

F-24

Measures 2015 Footnote

National Activities

School Climate Transformation Grants

 SEA grant award funds (new) $4,275

 SEA grant award funds (continuation) 7,375

 LEA grant award funds (new) 12,825

 LEA grant award funds (continuation) 22,125

 Technical assistance (continuation) 3,000

 Peer review of new award applications 400

 e Transfor mation Grants Total budget authority 50,000

 Number of SEA awards (new) 10

Number of SEA awards (continuations) 18

 Average SEA award $416

 Number of LEA awards (new) 64

Number of LEA awards (continuations) 110

 Average LEA award $201

Project Prevent

 Grant award funds (new) $14,900

 Grant award funds (continuation) 9,750

 Peer review of new award applications 350

 Total budget authority 25,000

School Emergency Preparedness: 

 Number of LEA awards (new) 30 School Emergency Preparedness: 

 Number of LEA awards (continuations) 20

 Range of Awards $250-$1,000

Average award $493

Project SERV $5,000

School Emergency Management Activities

Technical assistance contract (continuation) $2,500
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Successful, safe, and healthy students

F-25

Measures 2015 Footnote

Other National Activities

Other Acti viti es: 

 National center for safe and supportive schools

technical assistance contract (continuation) $2,500 Other Acti viti es: 

 Other data collection, dissemination, outreach, and

 assistance (new and continuation) 2,123

 Other Acti vities: Total budget authority 4,623

Set-Asides for DOI Schools and Outlying Areas $1,500

Evaluation $1,000

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 $30,091 Continuation Awar ds for Other Programs C onsolidated into Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students: 

Physical Education 48,292 Continuation Awar ds for Other Programs C onsolidated into Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students: 

Education Facilities Clearinghouse 994 Continuation Awar ds for Other Programs C onsolidated into Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students: 

Total 79,377

_________________

NOTE. FY 2015 continuation costs of $48,550 thousand for Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities 

National Activities are included in the measures for the Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students National Activities.

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 the Department used for 

the Safe and Supportive Schools Grants funded between 2010 and 2013 under SDFSC 

National Programs:

• 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
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Successful, safe, and healthy students

F-26

• 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 2014.
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

F-27

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 2015 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority: 

PP2014 2015 Change

$90,000 0 -$90,000

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. The program is proposed for consolidation in FY 2015 under 

new legislation. 

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 included:

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

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

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

climate and behavioral outcomes for all students. 

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

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

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

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

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

resolution and other school-based strategies to prevent future violence.

• Technical assistance, and grants to SEAs, to help LEAs and schools develop, 

implement, and improve their emergency management plans.

• Safe and Supportive Schools grants to State educational agencies to support data 

collection and analysis aimed at guiding 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 
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Safe and drug-free schools and communities national activities

F-28

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 LEAs

and communities create safe, disciplined, and drug-free learning environments, promote 

healthy childhood development, and provide needed mental health services for youth. 

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.

• 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)

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

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

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

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

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

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

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

Communities National Activities for fiscal year 2015. Instead, a similar National Activities 

authority would be funded under the Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students (SSHS) program, 

described elsewhere in this account, that would be created by the Administration’s Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorization proposal.

Activities supported in fiscal year 2015 under the proposed new National Activities authority 

would include (1) 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, and (2) Project SERV (School 

Emergency Response to Violence). These “Now is the Time” proposals include $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. Finally, the request for Successful, Safe, and 

Healthy Students includes funds to pay 2015 continuation costs for additional Safe and DrugFree Schools and Communities National Activities grants and contracts awarded in 2014 and 

previous years.
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Safe and drug-free schools and communities national activities

F-29

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

School Emergency Management 

Activities 

Grant award funds (new) 0 $29,950 0 School Emergency M anagement Acti viti es:

Peer review of new award applications 0 50 0 School Emergency M anagement Acti viti es:

Technical assistance (continuation) $3,000 2,500 0 School Emergency M anagement Acti viti es:

 Total 3,000 32,500 0 School Emergency M anagement Acti viti es:

Number of SEA awards 0 56 0 School Emergency M anagement Acti viti es:

Range of SEA awards 0 $175-$3,306 0 School Emergency M anagement Acti viti es:

Average SEA award 0 $529 0 School Emergency M anagement Acti viti es:

Bureau of Indian Education schools 0 $600 0

School Climate Transformation Grants

School Climate Tr ansformati on Gr ants:

SEA grant award funds (new) 0 $7,375 0 School Climate Tr ansformati on Gr ants:

LEA grant award funds (new) 0 22,125 0 School Climate Tr ansformati on Gr ants:

Technical assistance (new) $75 3,000 0 School Climate Tr ansformati on Gr ants:

Peer review of new award applications 0 500 0 School Climate Tr ansformati on Gr ants:

 Total 0 33,000 0 School Climate Tr ansformati on Gr ants:

Number of SEA awards 0 18 0 School Climate Tr ansformati on Gr ants:

Average SEA award 0 $410 0 School Climate Tr ansformati on Gr ants:

Range of SEA awards $250-$750

School Climate Tr ansformati on Gr ants:

Number of LEA awards 0 110 0 School Climate Tr ansformati on Gr ants:

Average LEA award $201

Range of LEA awards 0 $100-$750 0

Project Prevent

Grant award funds (new) 0 $9,750 0 Project Prevent:

Peer review of new award applications 0 250 0 Project Prevent:

 Total 0 10,000 0

Project Prevent:

Number of LEA awards 0 20 0 Project Prevent:

Range of LEA awards 0 $250-$1,000 0 Project Prevent:

Average LEA award $488
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Safe and drug-free schools and communities national activities

F-30

Measures 2013 2014 2015

School Emergency Response to 

Violence (Project SERV)

$2,843 $8,000 0

Safe and Supportive Schools

afe and Supporti ve Schools: 

Grant award funds (continuations) $48,610 0 0

 Number of grant awards 11 0 0 Safe and Supporti ve Schools: 

Average grant award $4,419 0 0

Evaluation 0 $1,000 0

Other Activities $6,956 $5,500 0

_________________

NOTE. FY 2015 continuation costs of $48,550 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 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.

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.
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Safe and drug-free schools and communities national activities

F-31

Measure: The percentage of eligible schools implementing programmatic interventions funded 

by Safe and Supportive Schools that experience either a decrease or an increase in the 

percentage of students who report current (30-day) alcohol use (2010 cohort).

Decrease Increase

Year Target Actual Target Actual

2012 58.0% 37.0%

2013 60.9% 73.9 35.1% 22.6

2014 77.6 21.5

Measure: The percentage of eligible schools implementing programmatic interventions funded 

by Safe and Supportive Schools that experience either a decrease or an increase in the 

percentage of students who report personal harassment or bullying on school property during 

the current school year (2010 cohort).

Decrease Increase

Year Target Actual Target Actual

2012 50.0% 43.0%

2013 52.5% 54.0 40.9% 42.0

2014 56.7 39.9

Measure: The percentage of eligible schools implementing programmatic interventions funded 

by Safe and Supportive Schools that experience either a decrease or an increase in the number 

of suspensions for violent incidents without physical injury (2010 cohort).

Decrease Increase

Year Target Actual Target Actual

2012 45.0% 43.0%

2013 47.3% 48.0 40.9% 41.0

2014 50.4 39.0

Measure: The percentage of eligible schools implementing programmatic interventions funded 

by Safe and Supportive Schools that experience either an improvement or a worsening in their 

school safety score (2010 cohort).

Improvement Worsening

Year Target Actual Target Actual

2012 59.0% 30.0%

2013 62.0% 72.9 28.5% 20.8

2014 76.5 19.8

Additional information: For each of the above measures, the data from 2 of the 11 grants in 

the cohort were excluded from the 2012 and 2013 actuals because the data from those two 
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Safe and drug-free schools and communities national activities

F-32

grants were not comparable to the data from the other grants in the cohort. The two grantees 

are receiving technical assistance related to performance data collection to enable them to 

provide comparable data in 2014. Data for the nine grantees represented above show 

improvement from 2012 to 2013 on all eight measures, with the 2013 targets exceeded on 

seven of the eight measures.

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. (Between 2010 and 2012 the program funded 

continuation awards only.)

Measure: The percentage of grantees that experience a decrease from the prior year 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 61.5

Measure: The percentage of grantees that experience a decrease from the prior year 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 73.1
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Safe and drug-free schools and communities national activities

F-33

Measure: The percentage of grantees that report a decrease from the prior year 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 65.4

Measure: The percentage of grantees that report a decrease from the prior year 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 69.2

Measure: The percentage of grantees that report an increase from the prior year 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 62.0
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Safe and drug-free schools and communities national activities

F-34

Measure: The percentage of grantees that report an increase from the prior year 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 50.1

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.

Other Performance Information

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 

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; decreases in cigarette sales on school property; and increases in 

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).
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Safe and drug-free schools and communities national activities

F-35

• 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 

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 continue on the cohorts awarded in fiscal years 2007, 2008 and 

2009.
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

F-36

Elementary and secondary school counseling

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority: 

PP2014 2015 Change

$49,561 0 -$49,561

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. The program is proposed for consolidation in FY 2015 

under new legislation.

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)

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

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

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

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

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

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

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

Counseling (ESSC) program for fiscal year 2015. In place of this and other 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 
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Elementary and secondary school counseling

F-37

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

healthy, and successful students. This new program, which is described in more detail 

elsewhere in this account, 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 

ages 9 and 17 experience mental health problems or addictive disorders severe enough to 

impair their daily functioning and that only 25 percent of these children receive appropriate 

treatment. 

The 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 support school counseling services as part of State and local plans for improving the 

conditions for learning. 

The President’s 2015 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; $75 million in the Department of Justice 

for a Comprehensive School Safety Program that will bring together the Nation's best minds to 

research the root causes of school violence, develop technologies and strategies for increasing 

school safety, and provide pilot grants to test innovative approaches to enhance school safety 

across the Nation; and $55 million in the Department of Health and Human Services budget for 

called Project AWARE (Advancing Wellness and Resilience in Education) to help teachers and 

other adults who regularly interact with students to recognize young people who need help and 

ensure they are referred to mental health services. 

The fiscal year 2015 request for the Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students program would 

include funds to pay 2015 continuation costs for ESSC grants made in previous years. 
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Elementary and secondary school counseling

F-38

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands) 

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Grant award funding (new) $12,694 $14,780 0

Grant award funding 

(continuations) $36,867 $34,281

0

Number of new awards 35 51 0

Number of continuations 103 95 0

Average grant award $353 $354 0

Peer review of new award 

applications 01 $500 0

_________________________

NOTE: FY 2015 continuation costs of $30,091 thousand would be provided from the appropriation for the 

Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students program. 1 The Department funded 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 2015 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.
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Elementary and secondary school counseling

F-39

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

2009

Cohort

Target

2009

Cohort

Actual

2010

Cohort

Target

2010

Cohort

Actual

2011 

Cohort 

Target

2011 

Cohort 

Actual

2012 

Cohort

Target

2012 

Cohort

Actual

2010 100

2011 100 91 100 90

2012 100 100 81 100 84

2013 100 100 49 100 64

2014

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

2009

Cohort

Target

2009

Cohort

Actual

2010

Cohort

Target

2010

Cohort

Actual

2011 

Cohort 

Target

2011 

Cohort 

Actual

2012 

Cohort

Target

2012 

Cohort

Actual

2010 1,220

2011 1,159 1,205 1,648

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

2013 1,117 1,037 690 1,589

2014 1,430

2015

Additional information: Performance data are collected through annual grantee reports; 2012 

data for the 2010 cohort will be available later in 2014. The 2013 cohort will submit baseline 

data later in 2014; the Department plans to establish performance targets once grantees submit 

baseline data.
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

F-40

Physical education program

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority:

PP2014 2015 Change

$74,577 0 -$74,577

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. The program is proposed for consolidation in FY 2015 

under new legislation. 

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. 

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 
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Physical education program

F-41

Department included 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)

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

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

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

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

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

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration is not requesting separate funding for PEP for fiscal year 2015. In place of 

this and other narrowly targeted programs that address students’ safety, health, and drugprevention needs, the Administration’s Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) 

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

program. The new program 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 fund proposals to strengthen instruction and increase 

student achievement, across content areas, including 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), the prevalence of unhealthy body weight among children has more than doubled over 

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

high blood pressure, high cholesterol, type 2 diabetes, and breathing problems. As of the 

2009-10 data collection period for the CDC’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 

17 percent of children and adolescents ages 2 through 19 were obese, compared to 6 percent 

in the 1976-1980 NHANES, a development likely resulting, in part, from reduced physical 
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Physical education program

F-42

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 2011-12 National Survey of Children’s Health conducted by the 

CDC, just over one-third of children ages 6-17 engaged in vigorous physical activity 3 or fewer 

days per week. This lack of physical activity could be partly a result of students’ limited 

opportunities to participate in PE in school. According to the CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior 

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

under the new Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students and Effective Teaching and Learning for 

a Well-Rounded Education programs could be used help address these issues.

The fiscal year 2015 request for the Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students program includes 

funds to pay 2015 continuation costs for PEP grants made in previous years.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 2014 2015

Grant award funding (new) $31,993 $34,304 0

Grant award funding (continuations) 42,480 40,160 0

Peer review of new award applications 104 0 1 0

Evaluation 0 113 0

Number of new grant awards 60 64 0

Number of continuation grant awards 132 116 0

Average grant award $388 $414 0

_________________

NOTE: FY 2015 continuation costs of approximately $48,292 thousand would be provided from the appropriation 

for the Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students program. 1 In FY 2014, the Department plans to make new awards to applicants from the FY 2013 slate.

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, as well as the resources and 

efforts invested by those served by this program. 

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

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

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

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

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

Physical education program

F-43

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. 

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

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

one on 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 

(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 early 2015. 

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

Objective: Support the implementation of effective physical education programs and 

strategies.

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

of daily physical activity.

Year

2010

Cohort

Target

2010

Cohort

Actual

2011

Cohort 

Target

2011

Cohort

Actual

2012

Cohort

Target

2012

Cohort 

Actual

2010 36%

2011 65 44%

2012 68 46 30%

2013 69% 42 34

2014 45% 35%

2015 38

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

2010 36%

2011 44 31%

2012 55 44 56%

2013 57% 47 59

2014 49% 60%

2015 64
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Physical education program

F-44

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

2010 22%

2011 20 29%

2012 41 39 25%

2013 43% 53 30

2014 55% 32%

2015 35

Additional information: The Department will have final data for the 2010 cohort and 2014 

data for the 2012 and 2013 cohorts in early 2015. The 2014 data for the 2011 cohort will not be 

available until early 2016. This is due to the fact that, each year, the Department provides many 

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

The 2013 cohort will include the new measure on meeting the standard of a healthy fitness zone 

as established by the assessment for the PYFP, replacing the measure on age-appropriate

cardiovascular fitness levels. 

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

2010

2011 $884

2012 880 $811

2013 $750 425 $347

2014 $400 $300

2015 280

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

cohort because there are no costs to report at the start of the grant. The Department will have 

final data for the 2010 cohort and 2014 data for the 2012 and 2013 cohorts in early 2015. The 

no-cost extension year will delay the 2014 data for the 2011 cohort. 
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

Physical education program

F-45

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 community-based organization grantees allocating the largest proportion to 

personnel. Grantees report that some of their most common challenges are the lack of proper 

reporting by students, loss of equipment such as pedometers, and the failure of students to 

complete and return the surveys needed for the performance measures. The final report of the 

study will be available in fall 2014.
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

F-46

21st Century community learning centers

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2015 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2014 2015 Change

$1,149,370 $1,149,370 0

_________________

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; reauthorizing language is sought for fiscal year 2015.

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 

Bureau of Indian Education in the Department of the Interior 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 

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

21st Century community learning centers

F-47

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 supplemental 

academic enrichment activities to students to allow teachers time to collaborate and plan; 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)

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

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

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

2013........................................................1,091,564

2014........................................................1,149,370

FY 2015 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $1.15 billion in fiscal year 2015 for the 21st CCLC program, the 

same as the 2014 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 2015 under reauthorized legislation and is 

based on the Administration’s reauthorization proposal. 

Under the reauthorization proposal, the Department would make competitive grants to SEAs 

and 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 
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

21st Century community learning centers

F-48

with one or more nonprofit organizations or local governmental entities) or nonprofit 

organizations.

Consistent with the ELT waiver available to the 44 States (including the District of Columbia, 

and Puerto Rico) approved for ESEA flexibility, the reauthorized 21st CCLC program would 

support ELT in States, school districts, and schools that have significantly increased the number 

of hours in a regular school schedule or that have redesigned the school schedule. Grantees 

could also use program funds to provide the “wraparound services” now offered through the 

Full-Service Community Schools program (currently funded under the Fund for the Improvement 

of Education, in the Innovation and Improvement Account), which would be consolidated into 

the 21st CCLC program. The Administration’s reauthorization proposal would continue to allow 

funds to be used for before- and 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 to improve student and school performance.

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 ELT 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. Moreover, emerging research suggests that high-quality after-school 

programs may have a positive impact on other desirable student outcomes, such as higher 

attendance during the regular school day and increased student academic achievement. 

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. For example, in 2012, States 

reported that less than half of the total number of students served (about 930,000 of almost 

1.9 million) attended programs for 30 days or more over the course of the 2011-12 program 

year. By lengthening the school day or year for all students, ELT 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.
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

21st Century community learning centers

F-49

Program quality would also be improved by awarding funds through a competitive process 

rather than by formula. 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, ELT, 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 2015 funds would be used to pay the 2015 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.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES (dollars in thousands)

Measures 2013 footnote2014 Footnote2015 footnote

Formula Grant Program

 Amount distributed to States $1,069,732 $1,126,382 0

 Average State award $20,572 $21,661 0

 Range of awards to States $5,349-$122,135 $5,632-$124,945 0 Formul a Gr ant Program:

Reservation for State activities 

(maximum) $32,092 $33,791 0 Formul a Gr ant Program:

Reservation for State 

administration (maximum) $21,395 $22,528 0 Formul a Gr ant Program:

National activities and evaluation $10,916 $11,494 0 Formul a Gr ant Program:

Amount for Bureau of Indian 

Education and the Outlying 

Areas $10,916 $11,494 0

Competitive Grant Program

Competiti ve Grant Program:

Amount awarded to States and 

eligible local entities 0 0 $1,116,726 Competiti ve Grant Program:

Amount for Bureau of Indian 

Education and the Outlying 

Areas 0 0 $11,494 Competiti ve Grant Program: 

National Activities 0 0 $11,494 Competiti ve Grant Program: 

Peer review of new award 

applications 0 0 $5,000
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

21st Century community learning centers

F-50

Measures 2013 footnote2014 Footnote2015 footnote

Competiti ve Grant Program: 

Continuation costs for the FullService Community Schools 

program 0 0 $4,656

Data on Centers

Data on Centers: 

Number of centers supported 10,200 11,000 12,000 Data on Centers: 

Total students served 1,875,000 1,900,000 1,950,000 Data on Centers: 

Students attending 30 days or 

more 930,000 950,000 975,000 Data on Centers: 

Total adult family members 

served 300,000 325,000 350,000

________________________

NOTE: Data on the number of centers are based on State-reported data and the assumption of higher participation 

rates due to increased implementation of ELT programs.

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, as well as the resources and 

efforts invested by those served by this program. No targets are shown for 2015 because the 

request is based on the Administration’s reauthorization proposal. The Department plans to 

establish new performance measures for the program when it is reauthorized.

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 CCLC programs will demonstrate educational and social 

benefits and exhibit positive behavioral changes.
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

21st Century community learning centers

F-51

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

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 34.2 32.4 33.4

2013 48.5 48.5 48.5

2014 48.5 48.5 48.5

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

2010 48.5% 48.5% 48.5% 40.2% 34.6% 44.3%

2011 48.5 48.5 48.5 40.3 35.7 38.1

2012 48.5 48.5 48.5 34.9 32.8 47.0

2013 48.5 48.5 48.5

2014 48.5 48.5 48.5

Additional information: A “regular program 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 grade level. 

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

2010 35.0% 20.0% 26.5% 17.8%

2011 40.0 25.0 19.9 18.2

2012 45.0 25.0 27.2 19.8

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 
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

21st Century community learning centers

F-52

data for this measure, the center has to have data on the student’s prior-year and current-year 

State assessment results. The 2012 data represent approximately 616,000 regular elementary 

school-aged attendees and 313,000 regular middle- and high-school-aged attendees. 

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

2010 75% 75% 75% 68.7% 65.0% 67.8%

2011 75 75 75 68.4 63.3 68.7

2012 75 75 75 69.9 64.6 67.9

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 developed three operational efficiency measures for the 21st CCLC program.

Measure: The percentage of SEAs that submit complete data on 21st CCLC program 

performance measures by the deadline.

Year Target Actual

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

2010 40 45

2011 35 55

2012 35 60

2013 35

2014 35
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCCESS

21st Century community learning centers

F-53

Measure: The average number of weeks a State takes to resolve compliance findings in a 

monitoring visit report.

Year Target Actual

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-54

The Department is conducting two additional evaluations of the 21st CCLC program. Through 

the first, led by PPSS, the Department is collecting 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 

focuses 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 

Department plans to use information from these studies to improve program management.