Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical 

Education Program: Final Report

February 2015 

Prepared for: 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

U.S. Department of Education 

Prepared by: 

Wehmah Jones 

Steven Lao

Samantha Lilly

Allison Waters

American Institutes for Research

Washington, DC 20007 
This report was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No. ED-04-CO-0025/0018 with 

American Institutes for Research. Erica Lee served as the contracting officer’s representative. The views 

expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department of Education. No 

official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product, commodity, service, or 

enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended or should be inferred. For the reader’s convenience, 

this publication contains information about and from outside organizations, including hyperlinks and 

URLs. Inclusion of such information does not constitute an endorsement by the Department. 

U.S. Department of Education

Arne Duncan 

Secretary

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Emma Vadehra 

Acting Assistant Secretary

Policy and Program Studies Service

Stephanie Stullich

Acting Director

February 2015 

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. Although 

permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be U.S. Department of 

Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, 

Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical Education Program: Final Report, Washington, D.C., 2015. 

This report is available on the Department’s website at 

http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/index.html. 

Availability of Alternate Formats 

Requests for documents in alternate formats such as Braille or large print should be submitted to the 

Alternate Format Center by calling 202-260-0852 or by contacting the 504 coordinator via e-mail at 

om_eeos@ed.gov. 

Notice to Limited English Proficient Persons

If you have difficulty understanding English, you may request language assistance services for 

Department information that is available to the public. These language assistance services are available 

free of charge. If you need more information about interpretation or translation services, please call 

1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872-5327) (TTY: 1-800-437-0833), or e-mail us at

ed.language.assistance@ed.gov. Or write to: U.S. Department of Education, Information Resource 

Center, LBJ Education Building, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20202. 

Content Contact:

Erica Lee

202-260-1463 

erica.lee@ed.gov
Contents

List of Exhibits............................................................................................................................. iv

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................ vi

I. Executive Summary........................................................................................................ vii

Overview of the Carol M. White Physical Education Program........................................ vii

Study Purpose and Design ............................................................................................... viii

II. Introduction....................................................................................................................... 1

Overview of the Carol M. White Physical Education Program.......................................... 2

Study Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 3

Study Design....................................................................................................................... 4

Component I: Project Design and Implementation Surveys ......................................... 4

Component II: Case Study ............................................................................................ 5

Overview of Report............................................................................................................. 5

Description of PEP Projects ................................................................................................ 5

III. PEP Project Implementation ........................................................................................... 8

What Were the Results of PEP Grantees’ Self-Assessments of Their Physical 

Activity, Health, and Nutrition Policies and Practices?.......................................... 8

What Physical Activity and Nutrition Policy Efforts Did PEP Grantees Report? 12 ............ 

What Physical Fitness, Physical Education, and Nutrition Activities Did PEP 

Grantees Report?................................................................................................... 16

IV. New PEP Priorities: Partnerships and BMI................................................................. 24

What Role Did Community Partnerships Play in PEP Projects?...................................... 24

What Were PEP Grantees’ Experiences With Collecting and Using BMI Data? 34 ............ 

V. PEP Project Challenges and Lessons Learned............................................................. 39

What Implementation Challenges and Lessons Learned Did PEP Grantees Report? 39 ...... 

VI. Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................................ 48

References.................................................................................................................................... 49

Appendix A: Government Performance and Results Act Guidance for the Carol M. 

White Physical Education Program, Fiscal Year 2010 Grantees ............................... 51

Appendix B: Survey of 2010 Grant Recipients: Year 1 and Year 3 ....................................... 59

Survey of 2010 PEP Local Education Agency (LEA) Grant Recipients: Year 1 60 ............. 

Survey of 2010 PEP Local Education Agency (LEA) Grant Recipients: Year 3 76 ............. 

Appendix C: Partnership Data Limitations............................................................................. 95

Contents iii Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
Exhibits

Exhibit 1. Population Characteristics of Youths Served by PEP Grantees .................................6

Exhibit 2. Average Percentage Allocation of Overall PEP Grant Funds, Years 1–3, by 

Category......................................................................................................................7

Exhibit 3. Percentage of PEP Grantees That Reported SHI Module Scores, by Range 

and SHI Module ..........................................................................................................9

Exhibit 4. Percentage of PEP Grantees That Reported Specific Modules Were Included 

in Their SHIP, by SHI Module Score .......................................................................10

Exhibit 5. Percentage of PEP Grantees That Reported Mostly or Fully Addressing SHI 

Modules, by SHI Module Score................................................................................11

Exhibit 6. Percentage of PEP Grantees That Reported the PECAT and HECAT Were 

Moderately or Extremely Useful, by Curricula Development Area .........................12

Exhibit 7. Percentage of PEP Grantees That Reported Plans to Implement Physical 

Activity and Food- and Nutrition-Related Policy Actions .......................................13

Exhibit 8. Percentage of PEP Grantees That Reported Fully or Mostly Implementing 

Actions Related to Physical Activity and Food- and Nutrition-Related 

Policies......................................................................................................................14

Exhibit 9. Percentage of PEP Grantees That Reported Moderate or Significant Change 

in Elements of Their Physical Activity Policy as a Result of PEP, by Type of 

Change ......................................................................................................................15

Exhibit 10. Percentage of PEP Grantees That Reported Moderate or Significant Change 

in Elements of Their Food- and Nutrition-Related Policies, by Type of 

Change ......................................................................................................................16

Exhibit 11. Percentage of PEP Grantees That Reported Moderate or Significant Focus 

on the Five Authorized Physical Fitness Activities..................................................18

Exhibit 12. Percentage of PEP Grantees That Implemented Various Physical Fitness and 

Physical Education Activities Before and During Their PEP Grant.........................19

Exhibit 13. Percentage of PEP Grantees That Implemented Activities Related to Healthy 

Eating Habits and Good Nutrition Before and During Their PEP Grant ..................21

Exhibit 14. Percentage of PEP Grantees That Implemented Various Physical Fitness and 

Physical Education Activities Before Their PEP Grant, by Grantee Type...............22

Exhibit 15. Percentage of PEP Grantees That Implemented Activities Related to Healthy 

Eating and Good Nutrition Before Their PEP Grant, by Grantee Type ...................23

Exhibits iv Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
Exhibit 16. Percentage of PEP Grantees With Partnerships That Reported Collaborating 

With Various Types of Partners, in Year 3 ...............................................................26

Exhibit 17. Percentage of PEP Grantees With Partnerships That Reported Significant or 

Moderate Levels of Partner Involvement, by Focus Area ........................................28

Exhibit 18. Percentage of First-Time and Repeat PEP Grantees With Partnerships That 

Reported Significant or Moderate Levels of Partner Involvement, by Focus 

Area...........................................................................................................................29

Exhibit 19. Percentage of PEP Grantees With Partnerships That Reported Significant or 

Moderate Levels of Partner Involvement, by Partner Type ......................................30

Exhibit 20. Percentage of PEP Grantees With Partnerships That Reported Various 

Benefits of the Partnerships, by Grantee Type .........................................................31

Exhibit 21. Percentage of PEP Grantees With Partnerships That Reported Significant or 

Moderate Challenges With Their Partnerships, by Grantee Type ............................33

Exhibit 22. Percentage of PEP Grantees That Collected BMI Data and Reported Various 

Uses or Planned Uses of BMI Measurements...........................................................36

Exhibit 23. Percentage of PEP Grantees That Reported Various Challenges to 

Implementing Their PEP Grant ................................................................................40

Exhibit 24. Percentage of First-Time and Repeat PEP Grantees That Reported Various 

Challenges to Implementing Their PEP Grant ..........................................................41

Exhibit 25. FY 2010 PEP Revised Performance Measures and Standardized Data 

Collection Methods ...................................................................................................42

Exhibit 26. Percentage of PEP Grantees That Reported Difficulty Collecting Data on the 

Performance Measures..............................................................................................43

Exhibit 27. Percentage of PEP Grantees That Reported Various Types of Challenges 

Collecting Data on the Performance Measures.........................................................44

Exhibit 28. Percentage of PEP Grantees That Reported Difficulty Collecting Data on the 

Performance Measures, by Grantee Type.................................................................46

Exhibits v Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
Acknowledgments

We wish to thank several individuals who contributed to the completion of this report. First, we 

are grateful for the guidance and support of the U.S. Department of Education. In particular, we 

thank Erica Lee, Daphne Kaplan, and Stephanie Stullich of the Policy and Program Studies 

Service. We also would like to thank the staff of Data Recognition Corporation (formerly 

REDA International Inc.) for their assistance with the study. In particular, we thank 

Herbert Baum, Elham-Eid Alldredge, and Tracy McCloone. We are grateful to the 

Carol M. White Physical Education Program grantees for their cooperation in completing the 

surveys and participating in interviews as part of data collection for this study. Without their 

efforts, this report would not have been possible, and we deeply appreciate their assistance. We 

also would like to acknowledge the thoughtful contributions of the members of our technical 

working group, Barbara Ainsworth, Randy Kuhnau, Sarah Lee, Russell Pate, and Patty Pursell. 

Although we appreciate the assistance and support of these individuals, any errors in judgment or 

fact are the responsibility of the authors. 

Acknowledgments vi Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
I. Executive Summary

American youths are becoming increasingly less physically active and have poor nutrition habits. 

Nationwide, less than one third of students reported achieving the recommended level of 

physical activity (one hour of exercise per day) (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

[CDC], 2014). In addition, most youths consume less than the recommended daily amounts of 

vegetables, fruits, and whole grains (U.S. Department of Agriculture & U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, 2010). These behaviors have contributed to an increase in 

overweight and obese youths,1 making the physical fitness of America’s youths a topic of 

national attention. 

1 Approximately one in three children and adolescents in the United States is overweight or obese (CDC, 2011).

In February 2010, First Lady Michelle Obama launched the Let’s Move! initiative as a 

comprehensive approach to solving the challenge of youth obesity, calling on schools, healthcare professionals, faith-based and community-based organizations, elected officials from all 

levels of government, and private sector companies to play an active role in providing youths 

with information and an environment supportive of healthy lifestyles. At the launch of 

Let’s Move!, President Barack Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum that established the 

first ever Task Force on Childhood Obesity to develop an interagency action plan (The White 

House, 2010). The primary recommendations of the task force focused on addressing the five 

pillars of the Let’s Move! initiative.2

2 The five pillars of the Let’s Move! initiative are as follows: (1) creating a healthy start for children; 

(2) empowering parents and caregivers; (3) providing healthy food in schools; (4) improving access to healthy, 

affordable foods; and (5) increasing physical activity. For more information on the Let’s Move! initiative, see 

http://www.letsmove.gov/about.

Schools, in particular, are in a unique position to help 

address these concerns as they have multiple mechanisms through which they can promote 

physical activity (e.g., physical activity programs, recess, school-based sports teams, physical 

education) and healthy eating (e.g., school lunches, vending machines, snack bars). 

Overview of the Carol M. White Physical Education Program

The Carol M. White Physical Education Program (PEP) provides grants to projects led by 

districts and community-based organizations (CBOs) to initiate, expand, and improve physical 

education for students in kindergarten through grade 12. The program focuses primarily on the 

development of high-quality physical education programs that address state standards for 

physical education and develop an environment supportive of physical activity. 

Executive Summary vii Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report

 
In 2010, as part of its efforts to align relevant program objectives with the Let’s Move! initiative, 

the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) revised certain aspects of PEP, its sole 

program focused exclusively on physical well-being, to “support a broader, strategic vision for 

encouraging the development of lifelong healthy habits, and improving nutrition and physical 

education programming and policies in schools and communities to prevent and decrease 

childhood obesity” (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, 2010, 

p. 10). The Department made four noteworthy changes to PEP in 2010: 

— Required, through an absolute priority, that projects include the (previously optional) 

authorized activity of instruction in healthy eating habits and good nutrition, in addition 

to addressing at least one of the other five authorized physical fitness activities. 

— Required applicants to conduct a needs assessment of their current practices and policy 

framework in order to develop project goals and plans to address identified weaknesses, 

as well as develop, update, or enhance both nutrition and physical activity policies. 

— Encouraged partnerships with community entities and the collection and use of body 

mass index (BMI)3 data by adding these new elements in the form of two competitive 

preference priorities. 

3 BMI is a number, calculated from a person’s weight and height, that provides a reliable indicator of body fatness 

for most people and is used to screen for weight categories that may lead to health problems. For more 

information, see http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/Index.html. 

— Established new Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) measures

(hereafter referred to as performance measures),4 as well as standard data collection 

methods for each measure. 

4 GPRA is a statute that requires all federal agencies to manage their activities with attention to outcomes. For more 

information, see http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/mgmt-gpra/index-gpra.

Study Purpose and Design

To examine how the PEP projects were being administered and implemented under the revised 

program regulations, the Department’s Policy and Program Studies Service initiated an 

implementation study of projects funded by fiscal year (FY) 2010 PEP grant awards—the first 

cohort of grantees to implement projects under the revised PEP. This cohort consisted of 

76 grantees, including 64 districts and 12 CBOs (one CBO-led project closed after its first year). 

This study addressed the following questions: 

— What were the results of PEP grantees’ self-assessments of their physical activity, health, 

and nutrition policies and practices? 

— What physical activity and nutrition policy efforts did PEP grantees report? 

— What physical fitness, physical education, and nutrition activities did PEP grantees 

report?

— What role did community partnerships play in PEP projects? 

— What were PEP grantees’ experiences with collecting and using BMI data?

— What implementation challenges and lessons learned did PEP grantees report? 

Executive Summary viii Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report

 
To address these study questions, the implementation study consisted of surveys of project 

directors in Years 1 and 3 of the grant and a case study of five PEP projects (three district and 

two CBO projects) that explored grantees’ experiences with community partnerships and BMI 

data collection (i.e., the two new competitive preference priority activities). The study is based 

solely on self-reported data and offers broad descriptive information about PEP implementation. 

The findings presented here describe grantees’ experiences as they relate to each study question.

Assessing PEP Project Needs

As part of the new application requirements, applicants were required to complete a needs 

assessment and engage in project planning. District applicants and CBO applicants that formed 

a partnership with a district or school were required to use the CDC’s School Health Index (SHI): 

Self-Assessment and Planning Guide. The SHI assesses the extent to which schools implement 

policies and practices recommended by the CDC in its research-based guidelines and strategies 

for school health and safety programs. Applicants were required to complete Modules 1–4 of the 

SHI.

5

5 The required SHI modules were as follows: School Health and Safety Policies and Environment; Health 

Education; Physical Education and Other Physical Activity Programs (hereafter referred to as Physical 

Education); and Nutrition Services. For more information about the SHI, see 

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/SHI/.

They also were required to develop project goals and a School Health Improvement Plan 

(SHIP)6 that focused on improving the weaknesses in their health policies and programs, 

identified by their SHI assessment. CBOs that were not partnered with a school or district, 

although not required to complete the SHI, had to conduct a similar activity using an alternative 

needs assessment tool.

6 The CDC provides a sample SHIP online that schools can use to develop their own plans: 

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/shi/training/07-Improvement/docs/PracticeImprovementPlan.pdf. 

Grantees most often reported weaknesses in their policies and programs related to the

Health Education (43 percent) and Physical Education (32 percent) SHI modules. Fewer 

respondents reported weaknesses in the Nutrition Services (19 percent) or School 

Health and Safety Policies and Environment (19 percent) modules. 

Approximately half of the grantees (51 percent) reported medium to high scores across all four 

SHI areas as part of their initial assessment.

7

7 SHI module scores range from 0 percent to 100 percent and are organized into the following five categories: 

0–20 = low; 21–40 = moderately low; 41–60 = medium; 61–80 = moderately high; and 81–100 = high. A low 

score for a module indicates that the assessed grantee is not performing well in an area (i.e., an area of weakness), 

whereas a high score indicates that it is performing well. A small number of grantees (5 percent) reported the 

category rather than the numeric module score.

Although grantees most often reported weaknesses 

(low or moderately low scores) in the Health Education and Physical Education modules, only 

59 percent of these grantees reported mostly or fully addressing policies and practices related to 

Health Education by Year 3. In contrast, 95 percent of these grantees reported addressing 

Physical Education policies and practices by Year 3; moreover, elements of the Physical 

Education module were the most often addressed, regardless of initial SHI score. 

Executive Summary ix Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report

 
Physical Activity and Nutrition Policy Efforts

The revised PEP aimed to have grantees promote healthy habits through policy as well as instruction 

and required them to engage in some type of policy action, including developing new policies or 

revising, updating, or strengthening existing policies related to physical activity and nutrition.

Grantees most often reported implementing policy actions and making changes to 

physical activity policies than to nutrition policies. 

Between 60 percent and 85 percent of grantees reported mostly or fully implementing physical 

activity-related policy actions, whereas between 49 percent and 75 percent reported mostly or 

fully implementing nutrition-related policy actions. Grantees also more often reported making 

significant changes to physical activity policies than to nutrition-related policies.

Among the physical activity policies, the greatest number of grantees reported making 

significant changes concerning the use of a standards-based sequential physical education (PE) 

curriculum (59 percent). Similarly, a large number of grantees made significant changes in 

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

programs or both (e.g., clubs, intramurals; 55 percent), requiring that students be physically 

active for at least 50 percent of PE class time (51 percent), and requiring annual professional 

development or training for PE teachers (51 percent). Among the nutrition-related policies, the 

greatest number of grantees reported making significant changes to those that addressed the 

types of food offered to students. Specifically, approximately one-third of grantees indicated that 

they made significant changes to policies aimed at reducing the availability of foods of minimal 

nutritional value (37 percent), restricting the marketing of unhealthy foods on school campuses 

(35 percent), and requiring the adoption and implementation of strong nutritional standards for 

all foods sold and served in schools (33 percent). For both policy areas, grantees more often 

reported engaging in activities to revise and expand existing policies and less often reported 

developing new policies.

Physical Fitness, Physical Education, and Nutrition Activities

In addition to policy actions, grantees were required to implement physical fitness, physical 

education, and nutrition-related activities to help improve student health outcomes. Grantees 

reported whether they implemented certain activities before receiving their PEP funds and after 

receiving the grant. 

Grantees implemented more physical fitness, physical education, and nutritionrelated activities during the PEP grant, compared with before receipt of the 

grant, particularly in the areas of improving instruction and student engagement 

in physical activity, staff professional development, and curricula revisions. 

As intended, PEP funds allowed grantees to engage in new activities. More than 96 percent of 

grantees reported that their PEP projects focused on various activities related to improving 

instruction after receiving PEP funds. The greatest increase in implementation occurred for 

activities designed to improve PE instruction related to cognitive concepts. Twenty-one percent 

of grantees reported engaging in these activities prior to receiving PEP funds. This number 

increased to 92 percent of grantees by Year 3. The number of grantees that engaged in efforts to

Executive Summary x Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
improve student engagement in physical activities external to the school-based curricula also

increased during the course of their PEP grant. Twenty-nine percent of grantees reported 

implementing these activities prior to PEP, and this number increased to 96 percent by Year 3. 

Similarly, there was a large increase in the percentage of grantees that implemented activities to 

improve staff and personnel capacity to provide PE instruction. Thirty percent of grantees 

reported implementing these activities prior to PEP. By Year 3, almost all grantees were engaged 

in these activities (92 percent). 

Among nutrition-related activities, the greatest increase in implementation occurred for activities 

that involved revising or expanding the existing nutrition curriculum and improving instruction

on nutrition education. Prior to PEP, about one-fifth of grantees reported engaging in these 

activities. By Year 3, the majority of grantees reported mostly or fully implementing these 

changes to their nutrition education instruction and curriculum (83 percent and 76 percent, 

respectively). The percentage of grantees that reported providing staff with professional 

development opportunities on nutrition education also increased from 12 percent to 84 percent. 

Community Partnerships

The Department added a competitive preference priority (three additional points in consideration 

of the PEP application) for applicants that included in their application an agreement that 

detailed the participation of required partners.8

8 Partnership agreements were required to include the following: (1) a description of each partner’s roles and 

responsibilities in the project; (2) a description of if and how each partner would contribute to the project, 

including any contribution to the local match; (3) an assurance that the application was developed after timely 

and meaningful consultation between the required parties, as defined in the 2010 grant application procedures; and 

(4) a commitment to work together to reach the desired goals and outcomes of the project. The partner agreement 

also had to be signed by the Authorized Representative of each of the required partners and by other partners as 

available and appropriate.

Partnerships were expected to do the following: 

(1) support a coordinated approach to change social norms; (2) encourage common policies, 

practices, and expectations for healthy eating and physical activity in all settings in which a child 

spends time; (3) expose grantees to multiple resources to increase knowledge of research-based 

approaches; and (4) increase potential for sustainability by garnering local support.

Of the grantees that formed partnerships, most reported that their PEP community

partnerships were either extremely valuable (59 percent) or moderately valuable 

(29 percent). The most commonly reported benefits were access to additional 

(nonmonetary) resources (90 percent) and the ability to build on the PEP grantees’ 

own knowledge bases (86 percent). 

Eighty-eight percent of grantees received priority points for establishing partnerships. The 

majority of these grantees reported that partners allowed them to reach more of their targeted 

population (75 percent). The least commonly reported benefit of partnerships was additional 

funding, either directly or through funding opportunities (39 percent). Case study data offered 

examples of the benefits of partnerships, including increasing communication and strengthening 

relationships; increasing student engagement; offering opportunities for networking and access to 

Executive Summary xi Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
resources and information; and extending the reach of health, physical fitness, and nutrition 

activities and knowledge.

BMI Data Collection and Use

The revised PEP also gave competitive preference (two additional points in consideration of the 

PEP application) to applicants whose plans included aggregate BMI data collection to monitor 

their student populations’ weight status over time as part of a comprehensive assessment of 

student health and fitness (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, 

2010). Although PEP did not require grantees to use BMI data for screening purposes, grantees 

that proposed doing so were required to have a mechanism in place to inform all parents of their 

students’ results and to establish a referral process to a medical provider for students identified as 

overweight, underweight, or obese. 

Sixty-one percent of grantees that collected BMI data reported providing or planning 

to provide parents with information about their children’s BMI to help them take 

appropriate action. 

The majority of grantees (61 percent) reported either providing or planning to provide parents 

with information about their children’s BMI. Examples of these communications included 

sending letters that included BMI data along with other physical fitness data, scheduling face-toface meetings with parents of students whose BMI measurement indicated that they were at risk 

of developing weight-related health problems, and providing opportunities for parents to obtain 

information through the school’s online system. Case study respondents described various 

reactions from parents to the BMI data collection. Grantees reported that some parents were

supportive of the process. Others were resistant to having schools or CBOs collect this 

information. Respondents attributed challenges to parents’ lack of understanding about BMI, 

concerns about confidentiality, and a general discomfort with the district or CBO having a role in 

identifying potential health issues among students. 

PEP Implementation Challenges and Lessons Learned

The 2010 PEP included three new performance measures designed to reflect the comprehensive 

focus of the revised program (physical activity, physical fitness, and good nutrition). PEP also 

required grantees to collect data on these performance measures by using uniform data collection 

methods. The performance measures and data collection methods for the FY 2010 grantees were 

as follows: 

1. Physical activity: Measured by pedometers (students in grades K–12) and the 3-Day 

Physical Activity Recall (3DPAR), a self-report instrument that asks students to 

recall their physical activity behavior on each of the previous three days (students in 

grades 5–12). 

2. Physical fitness: Measured by the 20-meter shuttle run (students in middle and high 

school). 

Executive Summary xii Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
3. Nutrition: Measured by the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) (students in 

grades 9–12).9

9 GPRA outcome data for FY 2010 grantees can be found in the following document on pages F-43 and F-44: 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget15/justifications/f-sss.pdf.

The most common implementation challenge reported by grantees was executing 

the revised requirements for collecting data on the performance measures 

(83 percent). 

The most difficult performance measure data for grantees to collect were the pedometer data 

(75 percent) and the 3DPAR data (49 percent). Grantees identified the lack of proper data 

collection or reporting by students (59 percent), loss or theft of equipment (56 percent), and 

failure to return requested information (53 percent) as key challenges to collecting performance 

measure data. Relatively few grantees experienced difficulties collecting data using the 20-meter 

shuttle run (5 percent) and YRBS (15 percent). 

In addition to challenges with performance measures, 64 percent of grantees reported that they 

could have benefitted from more time to plan for and carry out data collection activities, deliver 

professional development prior to implementation, or secure buy-in from key stakeholders. 

Grantees identified strategies to improve the data collection process and increase 

buy-in from stakeholders.

In both open-ended survey and case study responses, grantees described strategies to address 

challenges related to data collection, including the following: limiting the use of pedometers to 

school instead of allowing students to take them home, developing clear data collection protocols 

and time lines, and getting other staff involved to facilitate data collection. Grantees noted the 

importance of early and frequent communication about the project with all stakeholders (e.g., 

project partners, teachers) to build awareness of and encourage buy-in for the program. Grantees 

also described the importance of communicating with other PEP grantees to problem-solve and 

obtain ideas to help improve PEP project implementation. 

Executive Summary xiii Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report

 
II. Introduction

American youths are becoming increasingly less physically active and have poor nutrition habits. 

Nationwide, less than one-third of students reported achieving the recommended level of 

physical activity (one hour of exercise per day) (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

[CDC], 2014). In addition, most youths consume less than the recommended daily amounts of 

vegetables, fruits, and whole grains (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] & U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services [HHS], 2010). These behaviors have contributed to 

an increase in overweight and obese youths. Specifically, approximately one in three children 

and adolescents in the United States is overweight or obese, and childhood obesity has tripled 

since 1980 in the United States (CDC, 2011).10,11

10 Ogden et al. (2010) define obese as at or above the 95th percentile of body mass index (BMI) for age and 

overweight as between the 85th and 95th percentiles of BMI for age. 11 Based on the National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s (2010) definition of 

obesity as having excess body fat.

These statistics relate to immediate and long-term health effects, and they underscore the need to 

promote physical activity and healthy eating habits among youths. Regular physical activity 

improves cardiovascular and metabolic health, helps to build and maintain healthy bones and 

muscles, and reduces the risk of developing obesity and chronic diseases (e.g., diabetes). Regular 

activity also helps to reduce feelings of anxiety and depression and promotes psychological wellbeing (HHS, 2008). Similarly, proper nutrition is associated with positive health outcomes. 

Healthy eating is essential for the optimal growth and development of children, helps to prevent 

high cholesterol and high blood pressure, reduces the risk of developing chronic diseases, and 

helps to prevent obesity (USDA & HHS, 2010). 

In February 2010, First Lady Michelle Obama launched the Let’s Move! initiative as a 

comprehensive approach to solving the challenge of youth obesity, calling on schools, healthcare professionals, faith-based and community-based organizations, elected officials from all 

levels of government, and private sector companies to play an active role in providing youths 

with information and an environment supportive of healthy lifestyles. At the launch of 

Let’s Move!, President Barack Obama signed a Presidential Memorandum that established the 

first ever Task Force on Childhood Obesity to develop an interagency action plan (The White 

House, 2010). The primary recommendations of the task force focused on addressing the five 

pillars of the Let’s Move! initiative.

12

12 The five pillars of the Let’s Move! initiative are as follows: (1) creating a healthy start for children; 

(2) empowering parents and caregivers; (3) providing healthy food in schools; (4) improving access to healthy, 

affordable foods; and (5) increasing physical activity. For more information on the Let’s Move! initiative, see 

http://www.letsmove.gov/about.

Schools, in particular, are in a unique position to address 

these concerns as they have multiple mechanisms through which they can promote physical 

activity (e.g., physical activity programs, recess, school-based sports teams, physical education) 

and healthy eating (e.g., school lunches, vending machines, snack bars). 

Introduction 1 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report

 
Overview of the Carol M. White Physical Education Program

In 2010, as part of its efforts to align relevant program objectives with the Let’s Move!

initiative, the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) revised certain aspects of the 

Carol M. White Physical Education Program (PEP), its sole program focused on physical wellbeing to “support a broader, strategic vision for encouraging the development of lifelong healthy 

habits, and improving nutrition and physical education programming and policies in schools and 

communities to prevent and decrease childhood obesity” (U.S. Department of Education, 

Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, 2010, p. 10). 

Currently administered through the Department’s Office of Elementary and Secondary 

Education, PEP is authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), 

as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, to provide grants to projects led by districts 

and community-based organizations (CBOs) to initiate, expand, and improve physical education 

for students in kindergarten through grade 12.

13

13 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002). Retrieved from 

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf

PEP began awarding one-year grants in 2001 

and then changed to fund grants for up to three years in 2004.14

14 Continuation awards are contingent on the annual demonstration of substantial progress toward meeting project 

goals and objectives and the availability of future funds.

PEP’s absolute priority15

historically focused on awarding grants to support projects that proposed the initiation, 

expansion, and improvement of physical education programs to help students meet state 

standards for physical education by providing (1) equipment and support for physical education 

activities and (2) funds for training and education for teachers and staff.

15 ESEA, Title V, Part D, §§ 5501-5507; 20 U.S.C. 7261-7261f; applicants must address an absolute priority to be 

considered for a grant, and those that fail to meet the priority are considered ineligible and are not considered 

for funding.

The absolute priority 

also required that projects provide one or more of the following six authorized activities: 

1. Fitness education and assessment to help students understand, improve, or maintain their 

physical well-being. 

2. Instruction in a variety of motor skills and physical activities designed to enhance the 

physical, mental, and social or emotional development of every student. 

3. Development of, and instruction in, cognitive concepts about motor skills and physical 

fitness that support a lifelong, healthy lifestyle. 

4. Opportunities to develop positive social and cooperative skills through physical activity 

participation. 

5. Opportunities for professional development for teachers of physical education to stay 

abreast of the latest research, issues, and trends in the field of physical education. 

6. Instruction in healthy eating habits and good nutrition. 

Although PEP continued to focus primarily on the development of high-quality physical 

education programs that address state standards for physical education and develop an 

Introduction 2 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report

 
environment supportive of physical activity, the Department made four noteworthy revisions to 

PEP in 2010: 

— Required, through an absolute priority, that proposed projects include the (previously 

optional) authorized activity of instruction in healthy eating habits and good nutrition, in 

addition to addressing at least one of the other five authorized physical fitness activities. 

— Required applicants to conduct a needs assessment of their current practices and policy 

framework in order to develop project goals and plans to address identified weaknesses, 

as well as develop, update, or enhance both nutrition and physical activity policies. 

— Encouraged partnerships with community entities and the collection and use of BMI16

data by adding these new elements as competitive preference priorities.

16 BMI is a number calculated from a person’s weight and height.

— Established new Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) measures

(hereafter referred to as performance measures),

17 as well as standard data collection 

methods for each measure (see Appendix A). 

17 GPRA is a statute that requires all federal agencies to manage their activities with attention to outcomes.

The new performance measures and data 

collection methods were as follows: 

1. Physical activity: Measured by pedometers (students in grades K–12) and the 3-Day 

Physical Activity Recall (3DPAR), a self-report instrument that asks students to 

recall their physical activity behavior on each of the previous three days (students in 

grades 5–12) 

2. Physical fitness: Measured by the 20-meter shuttle run (students in middle and high 

school) 

3. Nutrition: Measured by the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) (students in grades 

9–12)18

18 GPRA outcome data for FY 2010 grantees can be found in the following document on pages F-43 and F-44: 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget15/justifications/f-sss.pdf.

Study Purpose

To examine how the new PEP projects were being administered and implemented under the 

revised program regulations, the Department’s Policy and Program Studies Service initiated an 

implementation study of projects funded by fiscal year (FY) 2010 PEP grant awards—the first 

cohort of grantees to implement projects under the revised PEP. 

This study addressed the following questions: 

— What were the results of PEP grantees’ self-assessments of their physical activity, health, 

and nutrition policies and practices?

— What physical activity and nutrition policy efforts did PEP grantees report? 

— What physical fitness, physical education, and nutrition activities did PEP grantees 

report? 

Introduction 3 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report

 
— What role did community partnerships play in PEP projects? 

— What were PEP grantees’ experiences with collecting and using BMI data?

— What implementation challenges and lessons learned did PEP grantees report? 

Study Design

To address the study questions, the implementation study of PEP consisted of a two-component, 

mixed-methods design. This report presents the key findings from the data collected from both 

components: 

— Component I: Surveys on project design and implementation (completed by PEP project 

directors)

— Component II: A case study designed to obtain in-depth information from a sample of 

grantees about their experiences with their community partners, as well as their 

experiences with BMI data collection (i.e., the two new competitive preference priority 

activities)

Component I: Project Design and Implementation Surveys

The survey component included two administrations: one near the end of Year 1 of the grant 

(August–September 2011) and a second administration in Year 3 (November 2012–

January 2013). The Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant Recipients: Year 1 (hereafter 

referred to as the Year 1 Survey) focused on the PEP projects’ design and implementation 

experiences during Year 1 of the grant awards. The second survey administration, the Survey of 

2010 PEP District and CBO Grant Recipients: Year 3 (hereafter referred to as the Year 3 Survey) 

focused on grantees’ reflections on accomplishment of project goals, challenges encountered in 

implementing the program, lessons learned, and sustainability of program activities. Survey 

questions included a series of Likert-scale items, yes/no, and open-ended questions (see 

Appendix B for additional information). 

For each survey administration, 100 percent of the project directors completed the survey. All 

project directors of the 76 grants completed the Year 1 Survey. The Year 3 Survey included 

75 respondents (one CBO-led project closed after its first year). Study team members conducted 

analyses across all grantees and by grantee type (district or CBO). Unless otherwise noted, data 

for which the sample size is less than 75 reflect instances where one or more grantees did not 

respond to a question. In addition, findings pertaining to PEP partnerships are presented for only 

the subset of grantees that reported consistent information, on both the Year 1 and Year 3 

Surveys, about the types of partnerships established (see Appendix C for additional information). 

Findings are reported across all grantees except for instances in which district and CBO grantees’ 

responses were notably different. 

For a select few survey items, the study team conducted exploratory analyses to compare the 

responses of first-time PEP grant recipients and grantees that had received PEP grants from 2001 

to 2009 (i.e., repeat grantees). 

Introduction 4 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
Component II: Case Study 

The study team purposefully selected a sample of five PEP grantees (three districts and two 

CBOs) for the case study. To focus on PEP grantees’ partnership and BMI data collection 

efforts, the team restricted the sample to grantees that (1) proposed in their PEP applications to 

engage in both official partnerships and BMI data collection (i.e., received competitive 

preference priority points); (2) reported engaging in both partnerships and BMI data collection 

and use (from the Year 1 Survey data); and (3) reported not engaging in these activities before 

the grant (also from the Year 1 Survey data). 

Overall, data collection included 59 interviews (five project directors, 29 project personnel, and 

25 partner personnel) across the projects, ranging from eight to 15 total interviews per project. 

Case study data analyses assessed themes within and across projects, as well as unique aspects of 

each project’s PEP implementation as it related to partnerships and BMI data collection and use. 

These data are presented starting in Chapter 4 (“New PEP Priorities: Partnerships and BMI”) and 

are generally used to support findings from the survey. 

Study Considerations

This descriptive study is based on self-reported survey data from all grantees and telephone 

interviews with a number of personnel from a purposively selected sample of the FY 2010 

PEP grantees, which served as the basis for this report. Although the surveys allowed uniform 

data collection across the population of FY 2010 PEP grantees through project director 

responses, no additional documentation or data collection exists to support the information 

reported by survey respondents. Although the case study data provide rich information about 

a sample of grantees’ experiences with BMI data and partnerships, this information is not 

generalizable to the population of FY 2010 grantees. 

Introduction 5 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report

 

Overview of Report

This report presents findings pertaining to how grantees implemented their PEP projects under 

the revised PEP guidelines. The report describes findings related to (1) grantees’ implementation 

of physical activity and nutrition policy efforts and activities; (2) grantees’ experiences with the 

new PEP competitive preference priorities—partnerships and BMI; and (3) primary challenges 

experienced and lessons learned during the course of the grant. 

Description of PEP Projects

The FY 2010 grantees included 64 district-led projects and 12 CBO-led projects. In addition to 

the variety of districts (e.g., public school districts, charter schools) and CBOs (e.g., Boys and 

Girls Clubs of America, collaboratives), the PEP projects included grantees in 25 states and in 

diverse settings, including towns; suburbs; rural areas; and small, midsize, and large cities.19

19 Locale code data retrieved from the Common Core of Data (online database) were used to determine the locales of 

the PEP projects; see http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/.
All but five projects were based on a three-year grant period; one grantee requested and received 

two years of funding, and the remaining four grantees requested and received one year of 

funding.20

20 Data for grantees with less than three years of funding were reviewed, and no systematic differences were found; 

therefore, these data were included in the sample.

By Year 3, the 2010 cohort of PEP grantees collectively served more than half a million youths. 

On average, PEP grantees reported serving more than 6,800 youths each. However, this number 

varied across grantees, from 180 to 67,600 youths served. CBO grantees served fewer youths on 

average than did district grantees (5,900 and 7,000, respectively) (see Exhibit 1).

Exhibit 1.

Population Characteristics of Youths Served by PEP Grantees

Type of grantee Average Median Minimum Maximum Total

District (n = 63) 7,000 3,200 180 67,600 440,600

CBO (n = 11) 5,900 2,500 490 28,700 64,400

Both (n = 74) 6,800 3,000 180 67,600 505,000

Exhibit reads: District PEP grantees served an average of 7,000 youths during the course of the PEP grants. 

Source: Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant Recipients: Year 3, 2012, item 7 (n = 74).

As in previous years, the new PEP grantees and their community partners had no requirement 

regarding what population to target other than to focus on students in kindergarten through grade 12. 

A larger percentage of district grantees than CBO grantees reported serving their entire population. 

The majority (72 percent) of districts reported that they served all schools in their affiliated districts, 

whereas slightly more than half (58 percent) of the CBO grantees reported serving the entire 

population of youths affiliated with their organization. All of the CBO grantees and half of the 

district grantees that reported not serving the entire applicable youths population indicated that their 

project targeted specific groups of students (e.g., students with physical or learning disabilities, 

students receiving free or reduced-price lunch). Additional reasons grantees reported for not serving 

the entire population included lack of funding and schools declining to participate.

The average PEP grant award for the entire grant period was $1,101,757, with awards ranging 

from $190,000 to $2,479,000. Both district and CBO grantees designated more than half of 

their grant funds for equipment and personnel. District grantees allocated the largest proportion 

of their projects’ overall budgets for equipment (28 percent on average), whereas CBO grantees 

allocated the largest percentage of their total funds to personnel (36 percent on average) 

(see Exhibit 2). 

Introduction 6 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report

 
Exhibit 2.

Average Percentage Allocation of Overall PEP Grant Funds, Years 1–3, by Category

Budget category Both

(n = 68)

District

(n = 58)

CBO

(n = 10)

Equipment 28 28 24

Personnel 26 24 36

Supplies 15 16 10

Contractual 15 15 15

Fringe benefits 6 6 6

Travel 5 5 2 

Training stipends 3 3 2 

Indirect costs 2 2 2

Other 1 1 4 

Exhibit reads: District PEP grantees reported allocating an average of 28 percent of their total PEP grant funds to equipment, 

whereas CBO grantees allocated an average of 24 percent of their PEP grant funds to equipment.

Source: Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant Recipients: Year 3, 2012, item 47 (n = 68).

Introduction 7 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
III. PEP Project Implementation

In 2010, the Department revised the PEP requirements to include a focus on best practices and 

research in the field, to encourage physical activity and healthy eating in youths, and to help 

students meet their state standards for physical education. These requirements aimed to have 

grantees promote healthy habits through focused planning, policy actions, and instruction, with a 

focus on physical activity and nutrition-related activities. The following section describes 

grantees’ experiences implementing these aspects of their PEP grants. 

What Were the Results of PEP Grantees’ Self-Assessments of Their 

Physical Activity, Health, and Nutrition Policies and Practices? 

Aligning Project Goals With Identified Needs: School Health Index

As part of the new application requirements, applicants had to complete a needs assessment and 

engage in project planning. District applicants and CBO applicants that formed a partnership 

with a district or school were required to use the CDC’s School Health Index (SHI): SelfAssessment and Planning Guide.

21,22

21 In previous years, prior to the 2010 PEP revisions, the SHI was an invitational priority that did not contribute 

points to an applicant’s score or win the applicant priority over others. 22 For more information about the SHI, see http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/SHI/.

Applicants had to use this assessment to develop project 

goals and plans to address identified weaknesses23 in their health policies and programs. 

23 Weaknesses were defined as areas that received low scores on the SHI scorecard; see the following document for 

more information: http://www.cdc.gov/Healthyyouth/SHI/pdf/Elementary-Total-2014-Tagged_508.pdf.

The SHI 

assesses the extent to which schools implement policies and practices recommended by the CDC 

in its research-based guidelines and strategies for school health and safety programs.

Specifically, applicants had to complete the physical activity (which includes physical education) 

and nutrition questions in Modules 1–4 of the SHI. These modules were as follows: School 

Health and Safety Policies and Environment; Health Education; Physical Education and Other 

Physical Activity Programs (hereafter referred to as Physical Education); and Nutrition Services.

The Department required applicants to develop a School Health Improvement Plan (SHIP)24 that 

focused on improving areas identified as weaknesses by their SHI and to design a comprehensive 

program that was aligned with these identified weaknesses.

24 The CDC provides a sample SHIP online that schools can use to develop their own plan: 

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/shi/training/07-Improvement/docs/PracticeImprovementPlan.pdf. 

Grantees also had to complete and 

submit (in their final report) scores for the same SHI modules at the end of the grant period to 

demonstrate program improvements. CBOs that were not partnered with a school or district, 

although not required to complete the SHI, had to conduct a similar activity using an alternative 

needs assessment tool.

PEP Project Implementation 8 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report

 
Grantees most often reported weaknesses in their policies and programs related to 

the Health Education (43 percent) and Physical Education (32 percent) SHI modules. 

Fewer respondents reported weaknesses in the Nutrition Services (19 percent) or 

School Health and Safety Policies and Environment (19 percent) modules. 

All but one CBO grantee completed the four designated SHI modules to assess their project 

needs. Approximately half of the grantees (51 percent) reported medium to high scores across all 

four SHI areas.

25

25 SHI module scores range from 0 percent to 100 percent and are organized into the following five categories: 

0–20 = low; 21–40 = moderately low; 41–60 = medium; 61–80 = moderately high; and 81–100 = high. A low 

score for a module indicates that the assessed grantee is not performing well in an area (i.e., an area of weakness), 

whereas a high score indicates that it is performing well. A small number of grantees (5 percent) reported the 

category rather than the numeric module score. 

However, more grantees reported weaknesses (i.e., low or moderately low 

scores) in their policies and programs related to Health Education (43 percent) and Physical 

Education (32 percent) compared with policies and programs involving School Health and Safety 

Policies and Environment (19 percent) and Nutrition Services (19 percent) (see Exhibit 3). 

Exhibit 3.

Percentage of PEP Grantees That Reported SHI Module Scores, by Range and SHI 

Module

 Percentage of grantees reporting score

SHI module Low or moderately low

(0–40)

Medium

(41–60)

Moderately high or high

(61–100)

Health Education (n = 70) 43 31 26

Physical Education and Other Physical 

Activity Programs (n = 73) 32 22 47

Nutrition Services (n = 73) 19 23 58

School Health and Safety Policies and 

Environment (n = 70) 19 27 54

Exhibit reads: Of the 70 grantees with scores for the Health Education module of the SHI, 43 percent of grantees reported scores 

in the low (0–20) or moderately low (21–40) range.

Source: Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant Recipients: Year 1, 2011, item 9 (n = 76).

In addition to identifying areas of strengths and weakness, the SHI identifies low-cost or no-cost 

changes that can be made in the school environment and guides users through a process for 

developing an action plan, or SHIP, to improve these areas. As part of the application process, 

applicants were required to develop a SHIP and align it with their proposed project design. 

Eighty percent of grantees reported that their project’s SHIP addressed all four of 

the SHI areas.

Survey data suggested that the majority of grantees used the SHI as intended—to inform project 

planning. Specifically, when examined according to SHI scores, all grantees that reported 

weaknesses on the Nutrition Services module and the Physical Education module reported that 

they included elements of these modules in their SHIP, as did almost all that reported 

PEP Project Implementation 9 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report

 
weaknesses on the Health Education module (97 percent) and the School Health and Safety 

Policies and Environment module (92 percent) (see Exhibit 4). 

Exhibit 4.

Percentage of PEP Grantees That Reported Specific Modules Were Included in Their 

SHIP, by SHI Module Score

 Range of SHI Module Score

SHI module

Low or

moderately low

(0–40)

Medium

(41–60)

Moderately high

or high

(61–100)

Across 

grantees

School Health and Safety Policies 

and Environment 92 84 89 89

Health Education 97 82 100 93

Physical Education and Other 

Physical Activity Programs 100 94 97 97

Nutrition Services 100 100 95 97

Exhibit reads: Of the PEP grantees that scored in the low or moderately low range on the School Health and Safety Policies and 

Environment module, 92 percent included the module in their SHIP.

Source: Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant Recipients: Year 1, 2011, item 9 (n = 75).

In addition to using the results of the SHI to develop a SHIP that addressed identified 

weaknesses, the Department expected grantees to implement activities to address the weaknesses

that were outlined in their plans.

Grantees more often reported addressing weaknesses in policies and practices 

related to Physical Education and Nutrition Services than Health Education and 

School Health and Safety Policies and Environment. 

Grantees most often reported weaknesses in the Health Education and Physical Education 

modules, and 95 percent of such grantees reported addressing policies and practices related to 

Physical Education by Year 3. In contrast, only 59 percent of these grantees reported mostly or 

fully addressing policies and practices related to Health Education by Year 3. Although fewer 

grantees reported low or moderately low scores on the Nutrition module, 77 percent of grantees 

addressed elements of this module (see Exhibit 5). 

PEP Project Implementation 10 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
Exhibit 5.

Percentage of PEP Grantees That Reported Mostly or Fully Addressing SHI Modules, by 

SHI Module Score

 Range of SHI Module Score

SHI module

Low or moderately 

low

(0–40)

Medium

(41–60)

Moderately 

high or high

(61–100)

Across 

grantees

School Health and Safety Policies and 

Environment 50 26 53 45

Health Education 59 50 83 62

Physical Education and Other Physical 

Activity Programs 95 94 100 97

Nutrition Services 77 76 71 74

Exhibit reads: Of the PEP grantees that scored in the low and moderately low range on the School Health and Safety Policies and 

Environment module, 50 percent fully or mostly addressed it over the course of their PEP grant.

Source: Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant Recipients: Year 3, 2012, item 11 (n = 75).

Aligning Project Goals With Identified Needs: Curriculum Assessment Tools

The revised PEP guidelines encouraged, but did not require, grantees to create, update, or 

enhance their physical education or nutrition education curricula. For applicants that proposed 

using grant funds to carry out such activities, the program required them to complete a researchbased self-assessment of their current curricula. Specifically, grantees had to complete the 

Physical Education Curriculum Analysis Tool (PECAT) or the Health Education Curriculum 

Analysis Tool (HECAT).

26

26 For more information on the PECAT, see http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/PECAT. For more information on the 

HECAT, see http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/HECAT/index.htm. 

These tools are designed to help districts conduct a comprehensive 

analysis of their curricula to determine how closely they align with national standards for highquality physical and health education. The tools can be customized to meet local and community 

needs as well as state or district curriculum requirements. The Department expected grantees to 

use the results of the PECAT and HECAT to identify curricular changes that would be addressed 

during the grant. 

Similar to the SHI, applicants could complete the PECAT and HECAT as part of their needs 

assessment during the application process to assist with project planning. Applicants also had the 

option of describing their plans for using these tools during the grant period. 

Of the grantees that used the PECAT and the HECAT assessments, most reported 

that the tools were most useful for determining whether curriculum content matched 

national standards; developing new lessons, lesson plans, or learning activities; 

and developing a scope and sequence for curriculum.

The majority of grantees that used these tools reported using the PECAT (72 percent) and the 

HECAT (61 percent) to assist in creating, updating, or enhancing physical or nutrition education 

curricula. Grantees reported relatively similar experiences using each tool to develop and 

PEP Project Implementation 11 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report

 
implement curricula. For example, the largest percentage of grantees reported that both the 

PECAT and HECAT were moderately or extremely useful for determining whether curriculum 

content matched national standards (92 percent and 86 percent, respectively). Similarly, a 

majority of grantees indicated that the PECAT and HECAT were moderately or extremely useful

for developing new lessons, lesson plans, or learning activities (91 percent and 76 percent, 

respectively) and developing a scope and sequence for their curriculum (86 percent and 

73 percent, respectively). Relatively fewer grantees found the tools useful for assessing the 

affordability of a curriculum (47 percent and 58 percent, respectively) and assessing the accuracy 

of the health, medical, and scientific information in the written curricula (57 percent and 

59 percent, respectively) (see Exhibit 6).

Exhibit 6. 

Percentage of PEP Grantees That Reported the PECAT and HECAT Were Moderately or 

Extremely Useful, by Curricula Development Area

Curricula development area PECAT 

(n = 54)

HECAT

(n = 46)

Determining whether the curriculum content matches national standards 92 86

Developing new lessons, lesson plans, or learning activities 91 76

Developing a scope and sequence 86 73

Creating a PE/nutrition-related curriculum revision or development committee 85 81

Determining whether there are protocols matched with each national standard to guide the 

assessments of student skills and abilities 83 81

Determining if curriculum content, materials, and instructional strategies can be successfully 

implemented by teachers within available time and with existing facilities and equipment 79 74

Developing new student assessment protocols to align with existing or new lessons, lesson 

plans, or learning activities 77 71

Informing and/or changing PE policy, funding, or staffing 67 66

Analyzing curriculum alignment with social norms among youth, families, and community 

members 65 72

Assessing the accuracy of the health, medical, and scientific information in written 

curriculum 57 59

Assessing affordability of curriculum 47 58

Exhibit reads: Of the 54 PEP grantees that used the PECAT, 92 percent reported that it was moderately to extremely useful in 

determining whether curriculum content matches national standards.

Source: Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant Recipients: Year 3, 2012, item 19 (n = 54) and item 21 (n = 46).

What Physical Activity and Nutrition Policy Efforts Did PEP Grantees 

Report?

One way PEP aims to change behaviors and develop healthy habits is through improved physical 

activity and nutrition policies. Grantees were required to engage in some type of policy action, 

including the following: (1) improving policy implementation; (2) revising or expanding 

policies; (3) strengthening policy monitoring; (4) strengthening policy review; (5) updating 

policy mandates; or (6) developing new policies. The program did not specify which policies 

grantees had to address; instead, grantees needed to address only those that were relevant to their 

settings and needs. Applicants participating in (or partnering with districts that were participating 

in) a program authorized by the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act or the Child 

PEP Project Implementation 12 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
Nutrition Act of 1966 were required to establish a local school wellness policy as part of these 

programs. For PEP, these applicants were required to address how their proposed project would 

align with, support, and complement the implementation of their wellness policy.

27

27 For more information on the wellness policy see, http://www.fns.usda.gov/school-meals/local-school-wellnesspolicy. 

Grantees 

without a wellness policy were encouraged to develop one. 

To learn more about how grantees met the PEP policy requirements, the Year 1 Survey asked 

grantees to report on their plans to implement various policy actions related to physical activity 

and nutrition. The Year 3 Survey asked grantees to report the extent to which they actually 

implemented these policy actions. During the first year of the grant, the most commonly reported 

policy plan for increasing physical activity was to improve the implementation of policies 

(93 percent). In contrast, fewer than half of grantees reported similar plans for the nutritionrelated policies (45 percent). Instead, the most commonly planned nutrition policy action was to 

revise or expand areas already covered in existing policies (87 percent). For both policy areas, 

grantees least often reported plans to develop new policies (see Exhibit 7). 

Exhibit 7. 

Percentage of PEP Grantees That Reported Plans to Implement Physical Activity and 

Food- and Nutrition-Related Policy Actions

s

 Percentage of grantees

Policy action Physical activity Nutrition

Improve implementation of policies 93 45

Revise or expand covered areas in current policies 84 87

Strengthen policy monitoring 78 75

Strengthen policy review 75 71

Update mandates of the current policies according to tate/federal standards 71 74

Develop new policies 63 55

Exhibit reads: Ninety-three percent of PEP grantees reported planning to improve implementation of physical activity policies; in 

contrast, 45 percent reported planning to take this action for nutrition-related policies. 

Source: Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant Recipients: Year 1, 2011, item 16 (n = 76).

Grantees more often reported implementing policy actions involving physical 

activity policies than nutrition policies.

During Year 3, grantees reported on the extent to which they implemented specific policy 

actions. Although the majority reported implementing most policy actions, more grantees 

reported implementing policy actions related to physical activity than nutrition. Between

60 percent and 85 percent of grantees reported implementing each of the physical activity policy 

actions included in the survey, whereas between 49 percent and 75 percent reported 

implementing nutrition-related policy actions. The largest difference in implementation was for 

efforts related to revising or expanding areas in existing policies (75 percent for physical activity 

compared with 53 percent for nutrition). For both physical activity and nutrition, grantees more 

PEP Project Implementation 13 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report

 
often reported engaging in activities to improve the implementation of policies and less often 

reported developing new policies (see Exhibit 8).

In most cases, a smaller percentage of grantees mostly or fully implemented policy actions 

compared with the percentage of grantees that planned to implement those policy actions. For 

example, although 75 percent of grantees planned to strengthen their review of physical 

education policies (see Exhibit 7), 65 percent reported mostly or fully doing so by Year 3 (see 

Exhibit 8). Similarly, 87 percent of grantees planned to revise or expand covered areas in their 

existing nutrition policies, but only 53 percent reported mostly or fully implementing these 

activities. However, a larger percentage of grantees improved the implementation of nutritionrelated policies by Year 3 (75 percent) than had originally intended in Year 1 (45 percent). 

Exhibit 8. 

Percentage of PEP Grantees That Reported Fully or Mostly Implementing Actions Related 

to Physical Activity and Food- and Nutrition-Related Policies

Exhibit reads: Forty-nine percent of PEP grantees reported that they mostly or fully developed new policies related to food and 

nutrition during their PEP grant; in contrast, 60 percent of grantees reported that they mostly or fully developed new 

policies related to physical activity.

Source: Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant Recipients: Year 3, 2012, item 22 (n = 75), and item 24 (n = 75).

The survey also asked grantees to report on the extent to which specific physical activity, 

physical education, and nutrition policies had changed as a result of their PEP projects.

Specifically, grantees reported whether they made significant, moderate, minor, or no changes to 

related policies.

PEP Project Implementation 14 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
The largest percentage of grantees reported that PEP helped them make significant 

changes to physical activity policies related to standards-based sequential physical 

education curriculum (59 percent) and nutrition policies involving the types of food 

made available to students (about one-third of grantees).

In addition to changes to require the use of a standards-based sequential PE curriculum, more 

than half of PEP grantees reported that PEP supported them in making recommendations or 

offers of physical activity through before- or after-school programs or both (e.g., clubs, 

intramurals; 55 percent), requiring annual professional development or training for PE teachers 

(51 percent), and requiring that students be physically active for at least 50 percent of PE class 

time (51 percent). In addition, approximately one-quarter of grantees indicated that they made 

moderate changes in these areas as a result of PEP. Grantees less often reported changes to 

policies requiring changes to daily schedules. For example, a little more than one-third of 

grantees reported making moderate or significant changes to policies requiring daily recess 

periods (39 percent) and daily PE classes (35 percent; see Exhibit 9). 

Exhibit 9.

Percentage of PEP Grantees That Reported Moderate or Significant Change in Elements 

of Their Physical Activity Policy as a Result of PEP, by Type of Change

Exhibit reads: Fifty-nine percent of PEP grantees reported that, as a result of PEP, they made significant changes to policies 

related to the use of a standards-based sequential PE curriculum.

Source: Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant Recipients: Year 3, 2012, item 23 (n = 75).

Among the nutrition-related policies, the greatest percentage of grantees reported making 

significant changes to those that addressed the types of food offered to students as a result of 

PEP Project Implementation 15 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
PEP. Specifically, approximately one-third of grantees indicated that they made significant 

changes to policies aimed at reducing the availability of foods of minimal nutritional value 

(37 percent), restricting the marketing of unhealthy foods on school campuses (35 percent), and 

requiring the adoption and implementation of strong nutritional standards for all foods sold and 

served in schools (33 percent). In addition, approximately one-third of grantees also reported 

moderate changes in these policy areas as a result of PEP. Fewer grantees reported making 

significant changes to policies requiring annual professional development and/or training for 

nutrition services staff (21 percent) or for staff who provide nutrition education (20 percent) or 

policies involving the integration of nutrition and healthy eating concepts into other academic 

subjects (12 percent); however, about one-third reported making moderate changes in the latter 

two policy areas (33 percent and 31 percent, respectively) (see Exhibit 10).

Exhibit 10.

Percentage of PEP Grantees That Reported Moderate or Significant Change in Elements 

of Their Food- and Nutrition-Related Policies, by Type of Change

Exhibit reads: Thirty-seven percent of PEP grantees reported that, as a result of PEP, they made significant changes to policies 

related to reducing the availability of foods of minimal nutritional value.

Source: Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant Recipients: Year 3, 2012, item 25 (n = 75).

What Physical Fitness, Physical Education, and Nutrition Activities 

Did PEP Grantees Report? 

The new PEP requirements expanded the absolute priority to require PEP projects to include the 

(previously optional) activity of instruction in healthy eating habits and nutrition, in addition to 

PEP Project Implementation 16 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
addressing at least one of the following five authorized physical fitness activities: (1) physical 

fitness education and assessment; (2) instruction in physical activities; (3) development of and 

instruction in cognitive concepts; (4) opportunities to develop positive social skills through 

physical activity participation; and (5) professional development. The combined focus was 

designed to encourage applicants to develop and implement a comprehensive and integrated 

program that would promote healthy behaviors among students. 

Among the five authorized physical fitness activities, the largest percentage of 

grantees reported a significant focus on physical fitness education and assessment 

(91 percent). In contrast, 54 percent of grantees reported a significant focus on 

developing positive social and cooperative skills through physical activity. Overall, 

86 percent of grantees reported a moderate or significant focus on all five activities.

Although grantees were required to implement only one of the five physical fitness activities, all 

grantees reported proposing that their projects would address all five activities. During Year 1, at 

least half of grantees reported a significant focus on each of the activities and over 90 percent 

reported a moderate or significant focus on each activity.28

28 Grantees’ responses to survey questions involving their level of focus on various activities is based on their 

definition of minimal, moderate, or significant focus, as a definition was not provided in the survey. 

The largest percentage of grantees 

reported a significant focus on physical fitness education and assessment (91 percent). In 

addition, about three-quarters of grantees reported a significant focus on cognitive concept 

development and instruction about motor skills and physical fitness (76 percent), and

professional development (75 percent). In contrast, relatively fewer grantees (54 percent) 

reported a significant focus on developing positive social and cooperative skills through physical 

activity (see Exhibit 11).

By Year 3, grantees had maintained roughly the same level of focus across three of the five 

activities. However, approximately one-third of the grantees reported an increased focus on 

providing instruction in motor skills and physical activities (from 63 percent to 88 percent) and 

providing opportunities to develop positive social and cooperative skills through physical 

activity participation (from 54 percent to 73 percent) during the course of the grant (see

Exhibit 11). 

PEP Project Implementation 17 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report

 
Exhibit 11. 

Percentage of PEP Grantees That Reported Moderate or Significant Focus on the Five 

Authorized Physical Fitness Activities

 Significant focus Moderate or significant focus

Physical fitness activity 2011 2013 2011 2013

Physical fitness education and assessment 91 95 100 99

Cognitive concept development and instruction 

about motor skills and physical fitness 76 79 99 96

Professional development 75 77 93 97

Instruction in motor skills and physical 

activities designed to enhance the physical, 

mental, and social or emotional development 

of students

63 88 99 99

Opportunities to develop positive social and 

cooperative skills through physical activity 

participation

54 73 93 96

Exhibit reads: In 2011, 91 percent of PEP grantees reported significant focus on physical fitness education and assessment. In 

2013, 95 percent of PEP grantees reported significant focus on physical fitness education and assessment.

Source: Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant Recipients: Year 1, 2011, item 10 (n = 76) and Year 3, 2012, item 14 (n = 75).

In addition to the five authorized physical fitness activities, grantees provided information about 

the specific types of activities implemented. Specifically, grantees described whether they 

implemented certain physical fitness and physical education activities before receiving PEP 

funds. Grantees also reported the extent to which they implemented these activities (i.e., 

partially, mostly, fully) after receiving the grant. 

Grantees implemented more activities related to physical education and physical 

fitness during the PEP grant, compared with before the grant, particularly in the 

areas of improving instruction in cognitive concepts, improving student 

engagement in physical activities external to the school-based curricula, and staff 

professional development. 

As intended, PEP funds allowed grantees to engage in new physical education activities. By 

Year 3, the largest percentage of grantees had mostly or fully implemented activities to improve 

student engagement in physical activities external to the school-based curricula (96 percent). The 

greatest increase in implementation occurred for activities designed to improve physical 

education instruction related to cognitive concepts. Prior to receiving PEP funds, 21 percent of 

grantees reported engaging in these activities. This increased to 92 percent of grantees by Year 3 

(an increase of 71 percentage points). Similarly, there was a large increase in the percentage of 

grantees that mostly or fully implemented activities to improve student engagement in physical 

activities external to the school-based curricula (from 29 percent to 96 percent, an increase of 

67 percentage points) and staff/personnel capacity to provide physical education instruction 

(from 30 percent to 92 percent, an increase of 62 percentage points). More grantees were 

involved in activities that aimed to promote social and cooperative skills in physical fitness prior 

to receiving PEP funds (45 percent) compared with the other physical activities that saw greater 

increases in implementation. But by Year 3, over 90 percent of grantees were doing some work 

in this area. Relatively fewer grantees were mostly or fully implementing activities to increase 

PEP Project Implementation 18 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
family involvement in student physical fitness (55 percent); however, an additional 37 percent of 

grantees were partially implementing these activities (see Exhibit 12).

Exhibit 12. 

Percentage of PEP Grantees That Implemented Various Physical Fitness and Physical 

Education Activities Before and During Their PEP Grant

Exhibit reads: Twenty-two percent of PEP grantees reported implementing activities to create a new physical education program 

before receiving PEP grant funds; by Year 3, 71 percent reported mostly or fully implementing this activity, and an 

additional 8 percent reported partially implementing this activity.

Note: On the Year 1 Survey, grantees reported on the physical activities they implemented before their PEP grant, and on the 

Year 3 Survey, grantees reported on the extent to which they implemented these activities.

Source: Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant Recipients: Year 1, 2011, item 11 (n = 76) and Year 3, 2012, item 15 (n = 75).

As with physical education and physical fitness activities, grantees also reported whether they 

implemented certain activities related to healthy eating and nutrition before and after receiving 

PEP funds. 

PEP Project Implementation 19 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
Grantees implemented more activities related to healthy eating habits and nutrition 

during the PEP grant, compared with before the grant, particularly in the areas of 

improving instruction and revising or expanding the existing curricula. 

Prior to receiving PEP funding, the majority of PEP grantees were engaged in efforts to promote 

awareness and healthy eating habits among students and their families. Specifically, slightly 

more than half of grantees were already engaged in activities to promote nutrition awareness to 

parents and communities prior to the grant (53 percent), and nearly half were encouraging 

healthy eating habits in after-school programs before receiving PEP funds (45 percent). By 

Year 3, even more grantees reported mostly or fully implementing these activities (73 percent 

and 69 percent, respectively). The largest percentage of grantees had mostly or fully 

implemented activities that involved improving instruction on nutrition education (83 percent). 

This activity also had the greatest increase in implementation (from 22 percent to 83 percent, an 

increase of 61 percentage points). Similarly, prior to PEP, one-fifth of grantees reported 

engaging in efforts to revise or expand the existing curricula for nutrition education. By Year 3, 

over three-fourths of grantees (76 percent) had mostly or fully implemented these changes to 

their curricula (an increase of 56 percentage points). In addition, almost all grantees were at least 

partially implementing these two activities (98 percent and 97 percent, respectively). Relatively 

fewer grantees reported mostly or fully implementing activities to provide professional 

development to school staff on identifying unhealthy eating behaviors in students and making 

referrals to appropriate services (40 percent), and facilitating coordination between food service 

and classroom instruction (47 percent) after receiving their PEP grant (see Exhibit 13).

PEP Project Implementation 20 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
Exhibit 13.

Percentage of PEP Grantees That Implemented Activities Related to Healthy Eating 

Habits and Good Nutrition Before and During Their PEP Grant

Exhibit reads: Thirty-three percent of PEP grantees reported implementing activities to establish a districtwide nutrition education 

committee before receiving PEP grant funds; by Year 3, 61 percent reported mostly or fully implementing this activity and 

an additional 17 percent reported partially implementing this activity.

Note: On the Year 1 Survey, grantees reported on the nutrition-related activities they implemented before their PEP grant. On the 

Year 3 Survey, grantees reported on the extent to which they implemented these activities. 

Source: Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant Recipients: Year 1, 2011, item 12 (n = 76) and Year 3, 2012, item 16 (n = 75).

A small number of FY 2010 PEP grantees received PEP funds prior to FY 2010 (14 grantees). 

Compared with first-time PEP grantees, a larger percentage of repeat PEP grantees reported 

implementing physical fitness, physical education, and nutrition-related activities prior to the 

receipt of 2010 PEP funds. The only exceptions concerned activities that involved integrating 

school food service and nutrition education and developing new curricula for nutrition education 

(see Exhibits 14 and 15). 

PEP Project Implementation 21 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
Exhibit 14. 

Percentage of PEP Grantees That Implemented Various Physical Fitness and Physical 

Education Activities Before Their PEP Grant, by Grantee Type

Percentage of grantees

Physical fitness and physical education activity First-time grantees

(n = 62)

Repeat grantees

(n = 14)

Improve personnel/staff capacity to provide physical education 

instruction 24 57

Improve physical education instruction related to physical fitness 23 57

Promote social and cooperative skills in physical fitness 44 50

Improve physical education instruction specific to physical activity 32 50

Develop or redesign physical education policies 37 43

Improve student engagement in physical activities external to 

school-based curricula 26 43

Create a new physical education program 18 43

Improve an existing physical education program 36 36

Improve physical education instruction related to cognitive concepts 18 36

Increase family involvement in student physical fitness 18 36

Exhibit reads: Twenty-four percent of first-time grantees reported implementing activities to improve personnel/staff capacity to 

provide physical education instruction before receiving PEP grant funds; in contrast, 57 percent of repeat grantees 

reported implementing this activity before receiving their FY 2010 award.

Source: Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant Recipients: Year 1, 2011, item 11 (n = 76).

PEP Project Implementation 22 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
Exhibit 15. 

Percentage of PEP Grantees That Implemented Activities Related to Healthy Eating and 

Good Nutrition Before Their PEP Grant, by Grantee Type

 Percentage of grantees

Healthy eating and nutrition activity First-time grantees

(n = 62)

Repeat 

grantees

(n = 14)

Promote nutrition awareness to parents and communities 47 79

Encourage healthy eating habits in after-school programs 37 79

Establish a districtwide nutrition education committee 31 43

Integrate nutrition education and nutritional themes into subject areas 31 43

Involve parents and the community in supporting nutrition education 23 43

Facilitate coordination between food service and classroom instruction 13 36

Improve instruction on nutrition education 21 29

Provide nutrition education pre-service and ongoing in-service training 

to teachers and staff 8 29

Revise/expand existing curricula for nutrition education 19 21

Provide training for school staff to identify unhealthy eating behaviors in 

students and make referrals to appropriate services 13 21

Integrate school food service and nutrition education 31 14

Develop new curricula for nutrition education 18 14

Exhibit reads: Forty-seven percent of first-time grantees reported implementing activities to promote nutrition awareness to parents 

and communities before receiving PEP grant funds; in contrast, 79 percent of repeat grantees reported implementing this 

activity before receiving their FY 2010 award. 

Source: Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant Recipients: Year 1, 2011, item 12 (n = 76).

PEP Project Implementation 23 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
IV. New PEP Priorities: Partnerships and BMI 

What Role Did Community Partnerships Play in PEP Projects?

PEP’s new direction included establishing two competitive priorities: awarding additional points 

to applicants proposing partnerships with community entities and/or the collection and use of 

BMI measurement. The Department added the competitive preference priority for partnerships to 

accomplish multiple objectives of the new PEP (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe 

and Drug-Free Schools, 2010). First, establishing community partnerships was aligned with the 

Let’s Move! initiative’s comprehensive approach to combating youth obesity and recommended 

strategies that indicated coordinated approaches are necessary to effectively change social norms 

and lifestyle behaviors (Koplan, Liverman, & Kraak, 2005). Second, formal partnerships 

encouraged common and consistent policies, practices, and expectations for healthy eating and 

physical activity across schools and community entities, providing the opportunity for healthy 

lifestyle choices in all settings in which a child spends time. Third, by including individuals from 

various community sources, grantees would be provided with multiple resources to increase 

knowledge and awareness of best practices and research-based approaches in the public health 

field. Finally, by establishing a formal partnership, a PEP grantee could garner support from 

local leadership, possibly leading to a stronger commitment to the project’s objectives and more 

opportunities for leveraging PEP grant funds, including matching funds, in-kind contributions 

(e.g., donations, volunteering), and awareness of other funding opportunities, thus increasing the 

potential sustainability of the project activities.

To receive additional points, applicants had to include an agreement that detailed the 

participation of required partners.29

29 Partnership agreements were required to include the following: (1) a description of each partner’s roles and 

responsibilities in the project; (2) a description of if and how each partner would contribute to the project, 

including any contribution to the local match; (3) an assurance that the application was developed after timely and 

meaningful consultation between the required parties, as defined in the 2010 grant application procedures; and 

(4) a commitment to work together to reach the desired goals and outcomes of the project. The partner agreement 

also had to be signed by the Authorized Representative of each of the required partners and by other partners as 

available and appropriate

Both district and CBO grantees were required to partner with 

the head of the local government and a local public health entity. In addition, districts also were 

required to partner with a CBO and the district’s food service or child nutrition director. CBOs 

also were required to partner with a local organization supporting nutrition or healthy eating as 

well as a district.

New PEP Priorities: 24 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Partnerships and BMI Education Program: Final Report

 
Limitations of PEP Partnership Findings

The partnership findings presented in this section reflect PEP grantees’ response to survey 

questions regarding official partners. Official partners were community entities with which 

grantees were required to establish collaborations to receive priority points. As a part of their 

application, grantees had to submit a partnership agreement that detailed the participation of 

these required partners in order to receive the points. 

Grantees also could establish unofficial partnerships or collaborations with community 

entities that were not part of an official partner agreement.

This section includes data only for grantees that reported forming official partnerships on 

both the Year 1 and Year 3 Surveys (see Appendix C for additional information). In addition, 

most of the partnership survey questions did not ask about experiences by partner type. 

Therefore, responses reflect grantees’ experiences across partnerships unless otherwise noted. 

New PEP Priorities: 25 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Partnerships and BMI Education Program: Final Report

Sixty-seven grantees (88 percent) received competitive preference points for 

including community partnerships as part of their PEP project design. Forty-three 

grantees established partnerships with the district’s food service or nutrition 

director, the most common partner.

Eight-eight percent of grantees received competitive preference points for including partnerships 

as a part of their PEP project design. Exhibit 16 lists the various types of community entities with 

which district and CBO grantees partnered. These data represent partnerships that were reported 

in Year 3, suggesting that these partnerships were maintained over the course of the grant. Of the 

grantees that reported partnerships, district grantees most commonly reported partnering with 

their food service or child nutrition director (82 percent). Similarly, a large percentage of 

grantees partnered with an external evaluator (64 percent) and their local state public health 

department (64 percent). The latter two partners also were reported most commonly by CBOs 

(70 percent for each). In addition, half of the CBOs also reported partnering with a hospital or 

clinic (see Exhibit 16). 
Exhibit 16. 

Percentage of PEP Grantees With Partnerships That Reported Collaborating With Various 

Types of Partners, in Year 3

Exhibit reads: In Year 3, 73 percent of PEP grantees with partnerships formed a partnership with the district’s food service or child 

nutrition director; 82 percent of district and 30 percent of CBO grantees reported this partnership.

Source: Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant Recipients: Year 3, 2012, item 33 (n = 59).

Case study respondents reported that partnerships were most often established based on 

preexisting relationships. According to one project partner, “We have a small district, so 

everyone knows each other. Everyone works together. It’s no big deal for people to call each 

other up for help. We really had a good working relationship when it began.” In some cases, 

collaborating on the grant helped to enhance the relationship between these groups. One CBO 

project staff member stated:

We’ve had a long-standing relationship with them [the community partner]. They 

were more of a donor before by supporting events or things like that. Through the 

PEP grant, we have taken [the] relationship to a new level. And [we] partner with 

them on things beyond the financial. 

Through PEP, the aforementioned partner now served as a source for data about the community, 

provided nutrition expertise, and served on project committees to help strengthen the health of 

the grantee’s organization. A partner from another project reported that, as part of the grant, his 

organization expanded its health fairs to include on-site fairs at the middle and high schools, 

enabling the organization to reach more students. 

New PEP Priorities: 26 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Partnerships and BMI Education Program: Final Report
CBO and district project staff also reported that they established partnerships to provide services 

or expertise that grantees were unable to offer because of limited staffing, lack of resources, or 

lack of knowledge. For example, staff reported that physical education often was overlooked and 

that there was little focus on physical development. Thus, at least two grantees (districts) chose 

to partner with an organization whose primary goal was to offer professional development for 

physical education staff. CBO and districts grantees also reported that partners had knowledge 

and expertise about relevant community events and health and physical fitness activities at other 

locations (e.g., community plans to create bike trails, knowledge about the lunch programs in 

other districts) that could facilitate the implementation of their PEP grants.

The majority of grantees that formed partnerships reported that their community 

partners were most involved in providing nutrition-related support, specifically 

indicating moderate or significant partner involvement in providing nutrition 

services (76 percent) and instruction in healthy eating habits and good nutrition 

(78 percent).

The 2010 PEP involved an increased focus on increasing healthy eating habits and nutrition. 

Accordingly, grantees reported that community partners were most involved in providing 

nutrition-related support. Examples of partner involvement included participation in nutrition 

education (e.g., classes on healthy eating, portion control, and gardening) and working with a 

district-level administrator who was in a position to make decisions about nutrition policies and 

implement changes (e.g., modifying school menus, adding healthy snacks to vending machines). 

In addition to partners providing support around improving nutrition, slightly more than twothirds of grantees that formed partnerships also reported moderate or significant levels of partner 

involvement in efforts to provide opportunities for students to develop positive social and 

cooperative skills through physical activity participation (68 percent). Partners were least 

involved with instruction in cognitive concepts about motor skills and physical fitness

(44 percent) and policy development (46 percent).

Partner involvement increased in all but one area between Years 1 and 3. The greatest increases 

in involvement occurred in the areas of providing nutrition services (participants reporting 

significant or moderate involvement increased from 63 percent to 76 percent, a 13 percentage 

point increase); providing opportunities for students to develop positive social and cooperative 

skills through participation in physical activity (from 58 percent to 68 percent, a 10 percentage 

point increase); and providing instruction in motor skills and physical activities (from 46 percent 

to 56 percent, a 10 percentage point increase) (see Exhibit 17).

New PEP Priorities: 27 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Partnerships and BMI Education Program: Final Report
Exhibit 17. 

Percentage of PEP Grantees With Partnerships That Reported Significant or Moderate 

Levels of Partner Involvement, by Focus Area

 Percentage of grantees

Focus area Year 1 Year 3

Instruction in healthy eating habits and good nutrition 75 78 

Providing nutrition services 63 76 

Providing opportunities for students to develop positive social and cooperative skills 

through physical activity participation 58 68 

Fitness education and assessment 54 58 

Providing teachers with professional development opportunities related to nutrition or 

physical fitness 49 58 

Instruction in motor skills and physical activities 46 56

Policy development 42 46

Instruction in cognitive concepts about motor skills and physical fitness 46 44

Exhibit reads: Of the 59 PEP grantees that reported partnerships, 75 percent of grantees in Year 1 reported that, on average, 

partners had significant or moderate involvement in activities related to instruction in healthy eating habits and good 

nutrition; in Year 3, 78 percent of PEP grantees reported similar levels of involvement. 

Note: Grantees were asked to report on the average level of involvement across official partners.

Source: Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant Recipients: Year 1, 2011, item 36 (n = 59), and Year 3, 2012, item 34 (n = 59).

Partnership data also were examined to determine whether there were differences in partnership 

experiences between first-time grantees and repeat grantees. A larger percentage of repeat 

grantees reported significant or moderate levels of partner involvement across all focus areas 

except policy development. This pattern persisted in Year 3 across all focus areas (see 

Exhibit 18). 

New PEP Priorities: 28 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Partnerships and BMI Education Program: Final Report
Exhibit 18. 

Percentage of First-Time and Repeat PEP Grantees With Partnerships That Reported

Significant or Moderate Levels of Partner Involvement, by Focus Area

 Percentage of 

grantees Year 1

Percentage of 

grantees Year 3

Focus area

First-time 

grantees

(n = 49)

Repeat 

grantees

(n = 10)

First-time 

grantees

(n = 49)

Repeat 

grantees

(n = 10)

Instruction in healthy eating habits and good nutrition 71 90 76 90

Providing nutrition services 61 70 76 80

Providing opportunities for students to develop positive social 

and cooperative skills through physical activity participation 53 80 63 90

Fitness education and assessment 53 60 53 80

Providing teachers with professional development opportunities 

related to nutrition or physical fitness 47 60 55 70

Policy development 45 30 47 40

Instruction in motor skills and physical activities 43 60 47 100

Instruction in cognitive concepts about motor skills and physical 

fitness 39 80 35 90

Exhibit reads: Of the grantees that reported partnerships, 71 percent of first-time grantees in Year 1 reported that, on average, 

partners had significant or moderate involvement in activities related to instruction in healthy eating habits and good 

nutrition; in contrast, 90 percent of repeat grantees reported this level of involvement.

Note: Grantees were asked to report on the average level of involvement across official partners.

Source: Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant Recipients: Year 1, 2011, item 36 (n = 59), and Year 3, 2012, item 34 (n = 59).

Grantees also were asked to describe the average level of involvement of their partners by 

partner type. A district’s food service or child nutrition director was the most involved in PEP 

activities (moderate or significant involvement reported by 93 percent of grantees that

established this partnership). Similarly, grantees reported high levels of involvement by external 

evaluation or monitoring agencies (87 percent) and local colleges or universities (84 percent). 

Relatively fewer grantees reported moderate or significant involvement from their local or state 

public health department or board of public health (50 percent) and other state or local 

governments (54 percent) (see Exhibit 19). 

New PEP Priorities: 29 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Partnerships and BMI Education Program: Final Report
Exhibit 19.

Percentage of PEP Grantees With Partnerships That Reported Significant or Moderate 

Levels of Partner Involvement, by Partner Type

Exhibit reads: Of the 43 PEP grantees that reported having formed partnerships with the district’s food service or child nutrition 

director, 93 percent reported that, on average, the partners were significantly or moderately involved.

Source: Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant Recipients: Year 3, 2012, item 33 (n = 59).

Most grantees that formed partnerships reported that their PEP community

partnerships were either extremely valuable (59 percent) or moderately valuable 

(29 percent). The most common benefits were access to additional (nonmonetary) 

resources (90 percent) and the ability to build on the PEP grantees’ own knowledge 

bases (86 percent). 

In response to an open-ended survey question about the primary strengths of PEP projects, nearly 

40 percent of grantees identified their community partnerships as a primary strength of their PEP 

grant. Partners reportedly brought great value to projects by providing resources and expertise. The 

majority of grantees that formed partnerships also reported that partners allowed them to reach 

more of their targeted population (75 percent). The least commonly reported benefit of partnerships 

was additional funding, either directly or through funding opportunities (39 percent). 

Similar to responses regarding their partners’ levels of involvement, a larger percentage of 

grantees that received a PEP grant prior to 2010 reported benefits associated with partner 

New PEP Priorities: 30 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Partnerships and BMI Education Program: Final Report
relationships compared with their counterparts that were first-time PEP recipients. The only 

exception involved benefits related to partners’ interest in collaborating to sustain PEP activities. 

This benefit was relatively similar across both groups (82 percent for first-time grantees and 

80 percent for repeat grantees) (see Exhibit 20). 

Exhibit 20.

Percentage of PEP Grantees With Partnerships That Reported Various Benefits of the 

Partnerships, by Grantee Type

 Percentage of grantees

Benefit

All 

grantees

(n = 59)

First-time 

grantees

(n = 49)

Repeat 

grantees

(n = 10)

Offered access to additional resources 90 88 100

Built upon knowledge base 86 84 100

Interested in collaborating to sustain PEP activities 81 82 80

Provided capability of reaching more of the targeted population 75 69 100

Allowed personnel to focus on specific areas of expertise 75 71 90

Contributed additional personnel 58 55 70

Provided additional funding, either directly or through funding opportunities 39 35 60

Exhibit reads: Of the PEP grantees that formed partnerships, 90 percent reported that the access to additional resources was a 

benefit of their partnerships; 88 percent of first-time grantees reported this benefit compared with 100 percent of grantees 

that had received a prior PEP grant.

Note: Responses reflect grantees' experiences with one or more official partners. 

Source: Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant Recipients: Year 3, 2012, item 35 (n = 59).

Case study respondents provided specific examples of how some projects benefited from their 

partner relationships. Reported benefits included the following: 

— Improving communication and strengthening relationships: District case study 

grantees reported more frequent interactions between project or central office staff and 

school-level staff, as well as across different school- and district-level departments 

(e.g., counseling, food services). Respondents also reported that partnerships helped 

develop and strengthen relationships among various organizations within the community 

(e.g., Department of Health, local hospitals, youth organizations, schools). 

— Increasing student engagement: Partners brought equipment and activities to the schools 

that helped increase student participation and engagement in physical activities. For 

example, one partner offered schools a fitness video library that included fitness activities 

for all skill levels. It was reported that these videos encouraged students who were 

generally less active to engage in physical activity. Partnerships also exposed students to 

professionals in the field of physical fitness, health, and nutrition, which reportedly 

resulted in increased student engagement. This exposure was perceived as important 

because students were reportedly more receptive to messages from an external expert 

than from the teachers and staff who they saw daily.

— Networking and providing access to resources and information: Partners helped connect 

PEP grantees to human resources in the district and community. For example, one project 

director described how a partner was able to connect them to the district’s superintendent 

New PEP Priorities: 31 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Partnerships and BMI Education Program: Final Report
and facilities director when they needed to meet with these individuals about the project. 

Partners also connected grantees to resources and information to which they may not 

have had access (e.g., resources and information from conferences, information about 

related community activities).

— Extending the reach of health, physical fitness, and nutrition activities and knowledge: 

Partners helped PEP grantees extend the reach of their message regarding health, physical 

fitness, and nutrition beyond the schools and into the community. To raise awareness 

among families and the community about these topics, grantees collaborated with 

partners to hold community events that allowed them to disseminate this information to 

the public. 

Reports of plans to sustain partner relationships offered additional evidence of the value of 

partnerships. Survey respondents reported that they expected moderate (44 percent) or significant 

(41 percent) collaboration with their current partners after the end of the PEP grant period. 

Similarly, respondents from all case study projects also expected to sustain a relationship with 

some or all of their community partners. They did not have specific plans for sustainability but 

indicated that mutually beneficial partnerships or those that had developed from preexisting 

relationships likely would lead to ongoing collaboration, as would the desire to build on the 

successes of the grant.

Grantees that formed partnerships reported few challenges with maintaining their 

partnerships; however, the two most common challenges were difficulty 

coordinating meetings and activities (36 percent), and diversion of time and 

resources away from other priorities or obligations of the PEP grant (36 percent).

Of the grantees that formed partnerships, the most commonly reported challenges with partners 

were the diversion of time and resources away from other PEP project priorities (36 percent) and 

coordinating meetings and activities (36 percent ) (see Exhibit 21). For example, one case study 

project staff member reported that its partners were involved in other grants, which made it 

difficult to schedule a common time to meet as a group and discuss PEP activities. Another 

described challenges scheduling time to meet with teachers because of limited planning time 

during the school day. 

First-time grantees reported more challenges with their partnerships compared with repeat 

grantees; and in most areas, first-time grantees experienced challenges that were not reported by 

any repeat grantee. Interruptions because of personnel turnover in the primary PEP district or 

CBO was not reported as a challenge by grantees in either group (see Exhibit 21). 

New PEP Priorities: 32 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Partnerships and BMI Education Program: Final Report
Exhibit 21. 

Percentage of PEP Grantees With Partnerships That Reported Significant or Moderate 

Challenges With Their Partnerships, by Grantee Type

 Percentage of grantees

Interruptions due to personnel turnover in

Challenge

All 

grantees

(n = 59)

First-time 

grantees

(n = 49)

Repeat 

grantees

(n = 10)

Difficulty coordinating meetings and activities 36 41 10

Diversion of time and resources away from other priorities or obligations of 

the PEP grant 36 37 30

Inadequate staff support 14 14 10

Lack of commitment 14 16 0 

Diminished interest in project goals and activities 12 14 0 

Difficulty communicating efficiently and in a timely manner 7 8 0 

Entities are not knowledgeable of project goals 7 8 0 

Interruptions due to personnel turnover within community entities 7 8 0 

The governance structure of the partnership(s) has not functioned effectively 5 6 0 

Different or conflicting perspectives 5 6 0 

Dissimilarity in expectations by different partners on project activities 3 4 0 

Lack of established effective communication channels 2 2 0 

Not perceived as mutually beneficial 2 2 0 

 the primary PEP district/CBO 0 0 0 

Exhibit reads: Of the PEP grantees that formed partnerships, 36 percent reported that difficulty coordinating meetings and activities 

with partners was a significant or moderate challenge; 41 percent of first-time grantees reported this challenge compared 

with 10 percent of grantees that had received a prior PEP grant.

Note: Responses reflect grantees' experiences with one or more official partners.

Source: Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant Recipients: Year 3, 2012, item 37 (n = 59).

Respondents across all the case study projects generally spoke positively about their 

partnerships, yet they identified communication as the most common challenge. Reported 

communication challenges included a lack of clarity regarding expectations about roles and 

responsibilities (a challenge noted primarily by the partners) and a lack of communication with 

partners about project activities. According to one project partner: 

The challenge is knowing more about what they [the PEP project staff] are doing 

and what they have planned. The more one knows, the more community 

connections can be made, and you can put together something that serves both 

your missions. 

A project director stated: 

Communication is always a key to the success of these projects. At the beginning 

of our project, there was a lot of misunderstanding about the PEP grant and how 

it would work and who would be impacted by its implementation, creating a 

variety of reactions from apathy to anger. However, as the grant progressed, 

more information was shared, and projects began to take shape, and people could 

see how these funds that were provided truly impacted their students. 

New PEP Priorities: 33 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Partnerships and BMI Education Program: Final Report
An additional challenge reported by case study respondents included limited buy-in or support 

from some partners. For example, one case study CBO staff member reported: 

The challenge, from my experience, is just getting everyone to buy in to it. As 

classroom teachers, you have your own things to get done, especially elementary 

teachers; they have their set schedule, and if you bring something else in that they 

haven’t bought in to, it will be tough to get the information you need. You need a 

buy-in from everybody [who will need to be involved to accomplish goals]. 

What Were PEP Grantees’ Experiences With Collecting and Using 

BMI Data?

In addition to encouraging partnerships, the revised PEP also gave competitive preference to 

applicants whose plans included using aggregate BMI data collection to monitor their student 

populations’ weight status over time as part of a comprehensive assessment of student health and 

fitness (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, 2010). BMI is 

calculated from an individual’s weight and height, and it is used as an indicator for body-fat 

percentage and as a screening tool to detect weight-related health problems. Using this measure, 

individuals are characterized as underweight, normal weight, overweight, or obese.30

30 For more information, see http://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/index.html.

This 

change coincided with a move by some states to mandate the collection of BMI data from all 

enrolled students for screening purposes. In 2009, 13 states required school-based BMI 

measurement (Nihiser et al., 2009). By 2011, 20 states had mandated BMI or body composition 

screening in schools, and nine others recommended this assessment either through screening or 

through the inclusion of fitness assessments in content standards (Linchey & Madsen, 2011). 

The Department encouraged PEP grantees that applied under this competitive preference to use 

BMI measures in a consistent way by requiring a plan that included elements such as proposed 

methods for measurements, policies to ensure privacy, and parental notification. Grantees could 

use BMI data in the aggregate to describe weight status over time in the general student 

population or among subgroups, monitor progress toward achieving national health objectives, 

monitor the effects of school-based physical activity and nutrition policies and programs, and 

inform decisions related to policies and practices. 

Applicants also could propose to use the BMI data for screening—that is, identifying youths 

at risk of weight-related health problems. Although this screening was not required, those 

that chose to conduct screenings had additional requirements consisting of the following: 

(1) to provide parents with a clear explanation of BMI results and (2) to ensure the availability 

of resources for safe and effective follow-up with local medical care providers. Aside from 

these criteria, the Department did not specify how BMI data should be collected or used 

(e.g., frequency of data collection, level at which data should be reported), leaving such 

decisions to the discretion of grantees. Therefore, data collection and usage experiences varied 

widely across grantees. 

New PEP Priorities: 34 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Partnerships and BMI Education Program: Final Report

 
Eighty-eight percent of grantees received competitive preference priority points for 

including BMI data collection as part of their PEP project design, and grantees 

reported a broad range of uses for BMI data, including using the data as an 

assessment and program planning tool.

During Year 3, 95 percent of grantees reported collecting BMI data during their PEP grant 

(94 percent of district grantees and 100 percent of CBO grantees). Of these grantees, most 

reported using or planning to use the BMI data as a tool to assess the weight status of the student 

population over time (82 percent) and to assess outcomes related to PEP activities (79 percent).

The majority of grantees also indicated that they used or planned to use the data for program 

planning purposes, specifically to guide physical activity and nutrition program development 

(78 percent each) (see Exhibit 22). For example, one case study staff member described tracking 

aggregate BMI by examining the data for students at each grade level to identify the percentage 

of students who were underweight, healthy, or at risk. Aggregate measurements revealed that 

about 60 percent of middle school students were in the at-risk category, prompting discussions 

about what the district could do to address this issue (e.g., purchase new equipment, offer 

additional PE classes). This staff member reported very little change in this number after one 

year and concluded that programmatic changes might be necessary. A staff member from another 

case study project explained: 

We take a look at the data and see if it is improving or getting worse. It holds 

teachers accountable because if all your kids’ BMIs are getting higher, then 

maybe you aren’t getting your kids up and moving enough. 

Survey data also indicated that grantees examined trends in BMI measurements at the individual 

student level. Nearly half of grantees that collected BMI data (48 percent) reported using the data 

to assess the weight status of individual students to identify those at risk for weight-related health 

problems. For example, case study project staff reported that students’ BMI measures were 

compared at the beginning and end of the school year as well as from one year to the next. 

Project staff also described sharing individual BMI measurements with students to help them set 

goals for BMI achievement and assess their progress toward these goals. As one PE teacher

reported, students could “see if all of their hard work paid off to improve their scores.” In 

addition, grantees also used BMI data as a screening tool to identify major weight loss or gain in 

individual students and used this information to determine which students were of concern and 

warranted follow-up. Follow-up often consisted of a conversation with an at-risk student and/or 

his parents to discuss strategies for addressing health concerns.

New PEP Priorities: 35 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Partnerships and BMI Education Program: Final Report
Exhibit 22.

Percentage of PEP Grantees That Collected BMI Data and Reported Various Uses or 

Planned Uses of BMI Measurements

 All 

grantees

(n = 71)

District 

grantees

(n = 60)

CBO 

grantees

(n = 11) Use of BMI measurements

To assess the weight status of the student population across time 82 82 82

To assess outcomes related to PEP grant activities 79 77 91

To guide physical activity program development 78 77 82

To guide nutrition-related program development 78 77 82

To provide parents with information about their children's BMI to help them 

take appropriate action 61 58 73

To provide the data to school administrator/board to inform policy change 59 65 27

To calculate percentage of students of different weight statuses among 

the population 48 48 46

To assess the weight status of individual students to identify those at risk 

for weight-related health problems 48 47 55

To compare the population trends at different sites/schools 39 40 36

Exhibit reads: Of the PEP grantees that collected BMI data, 82 percent reported using or planning to use BMI data to assess the 

weight status of the student population across time.

Source: Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant Recipients: Year 3, 2012, item 53 (n = 71).

Finally, case study respondents reported using BMI data to educate students about what a healthy 

weight is for their age and height, to encourage students to think about what they eat and how 

active they are, and to inspire students to take ownership of their health. 

Grantees that proposed using BMI data for screening purposes were required to have a 

mechanism in place to inform parents of their students’ results and establish a referral process to 

a medical provider for students identified as underweight, overweight, or obese. This 

requirement was put in place to help avoid unintended consequences such as the use of the BMI 

measurement as a diagnostic (rather than a screening) tool.

Sixty-one percent of grantees that collected BMI data provided or planned to provide 

parents with information about their children’s BMI to help them take appropriate 

action. 

Case study interviews provided insight into some project staffs’ experiences with parents. For 

example, at all case study projects, parents received a letter at the beginning of the school year 

explaining the BMI data collection activities and were provided with the opportunity to opt out 

their child. 

Respondents at all case study projects described procedures through which parents could find out 

about their children’s BMI. These procedures included sending home letters with reports that 

provided BMI data along with other physical fitness data and providing opportunities for parents 

to obtain information through the school’s online system. 

New PEP Priorities: 36 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Partnerships and BMI Education Program: Final Report
Respondents also reported following up with the parents of students whose BMI scores indicated 

that they were at risk of developing weight-related health problems to help them take 

appropriate action. Strategies for following up with parents ranged from a more hands-on 

approach (e.g., setting up one-on-one meetings with parents to discuss their students’ BMI and 

developing an action plan for the student) to providing parents with information or resources 

about next steps (e.g., providing a referral to a local physician, providing information about how 

to interpret the data and about what steps or interventions parents could consider if their child 

was identified as being at risk). 

Despite efforts to educate parents about BMI prior to collecting the data, case study respondents 

at four of the five projects reported challenges in communicating with families about students’ 

BMI data, some of which seemed to stem from a general lack of understanding of the measure. 

At one district project, a packet was sent home with all students regardless of whether they were 

identified as high risk or not. The packets reportedly contained students’ BMI measurements, 

information explaining what the numbers meant, and information about what steps parents could 

take if the BMI measurement indicated that the student was at risk for health-related challenges.

However, the district experienced a negative reaction from some parents. A staff member from 

this project acknowledged:

I don’t think we gave a great deal of thought to how parents and grandparents 

would react.... We sent home BMI data for the first year and got a lot of 

resistance—maybe they didn’t understand it, maybe they took offense that we 

were doing that. I’m not sure they understood what BMI is or how it was 

measured. 

The project revised its strategy for communicating with parents and decided to take a more 

targeted approach, reaching out only to parents of students at the high end of the at-risk range.

Instead of letters, staff set up one-on-one conferences with parents to discuss an action plan. 

Project staff reported that parent concerns about BMI appeared to stem primarily from issues 

related to confidentiality. Staff also commented that some parents were uncomfortable with the 

district or CBO’s role in identifying potential student health issues. As one project director 

explained, “Certain parents were taken aback by what they perceived as being outside of the 

school’s realm.” A respondent at another project described a similar experience and reported that 

“Some of the parents say it’s too personal for the school to do that.”

Respondents also described successful interactions with parents. For example, one project staff 

member reported that parents reached out to her to provide updates about their progress on 

suggested strategies to address student health issues. Another reported that parents were 

“excited” to know that they were measuring student BMI. According to one CBO staff member: 

We had parents that were very receptive and grateful about how we’ve been able 

to help them. By forming that bond early and not making it seem like we’re just 

attacking them, we’re letting them know this [high BMI] is common and about the 

obesity epidemic, letting them know they’re not alone. A lot of parents say they 

just don’t know what to do anymore [about children’s health and nutrition]. 

New PEP Priorities: 37 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Partnerships and BMI Education Program: Final Report
According to case study interviews, stakeholders, including parents, students, and 

PEP project personnel, had mixed views about the BMI, ranging from support to 

doubts about the validity of the measures.

At least one respondent at each of the five case study projects reported having doubts about the 

validity of the BMI as a measure of students’ health and fitness. As one project director stated: 

We started out expecting it to be really helpful in determining kids’ needs but 

found that often students who were active and didn’t look obese ended up having 

BMIs that indicated they were obese/at risk, so it didn’t really indicate their true 

fitness level. In some cases, it’s right, but in other cases it’s totally off base. 

Another project director described similar concerns:

They [students] have some questions about understanding their own body and 

health during that PE class; we answer them but do our best to not overemphasize 

the BMI data, especially because of our collection method—we’re just doing a 

straight calculation of height and weight, which is very widely used, but not 

always the most reliable.... So that’s why we really want to convey the message 

that if you have concerns about BMI level, you should consult with a family 

physician to really get accurate results and talk about a plan. 

Parents also reportedly questioned whether BMI was a reliable measure of student health. As 

with staff, these doubts primarily arose from seeing seemingly healthy students identified as 

having a high BMI.

Case study respondents reported varying reactions from their PEP projects’ youths, with 

reactions ranging from interest and appreciation to dislike. Project staff reported that students 

generally were interested in BMI-related activities, often because they valued the opportunity to 

see personal progress over time. They also reported that students were “eager to see their 

improvements” and that “they look forward to it, especially if they’ve started an activity and 

want to see if it’s made a difference.” In contrast, some students did not like the BMI activities, 

mainly because of concerns about confidentiality. Students, particularly older girls, were selfconsciousness about others knowing their weight. One PE teacher stated, “The students don’t 

like it [BMI data collection]. We cover it [student measurements] up—nobody can see their 

information, but they still don’t like it, especially the overweight children. They struggle even 

coming in there to do it.”

Respondents also reported difficulty building understanding of BMI activities among students 

who were either too young or developmentally delayed. In addition, several respondents noted 

the importance of engaging students in the BMI process. As one respondent put it, “We don’t 

think about it, but really we need to get kids’ approval and their acceptance, or no matter what 

you do, they don’t effectively participate.”

New PEP Priorities: 38 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Partnerships and BMI Education Program: Final Report
V. PEP Project Challenges and Lessons Learned 

What Implementation Challenges and Lessons Learned Did PEP 

Grantees Report?

As the new PEP requirements were implemented for the first time with FY 2010 grantees, the 

surveys and case study questions included a series of items to gauge the challenges that grantees 

experienced in implementing their PEP projects. Challenges pertaining to the two competitive 

preference criteria—partnerships and BMI data collection—are discussed in previous sections of 

this document. The following section reviews challenges that grantees experienced in 

implementing other components of the grant. 

The most common implementation challenge reported by grantees was executing the 

revised requirements for collecting data on the performance measures (83 percent).

The 2010 PEP included three new performance measures designed to reflect the comprehensive 

focus of the revised program (physical activity, physical fitness, and good nutrition). In addition, 

PEP required grantees to collect data on these performance measures by using uniform data 

collection methods. 

When grantees reported on the types of challenges that they experienced in implementing their 

PEP projects, challenges collecting data on the new performance measures were the most 

commonly reported (83 percent) (see Exhibit 23). Grantees cited numerous reasons for their 

difficulties with the performance measures, including the time and resources needed to gather the 

data and unreliable data collection instruments. In both open-ended survey and case study 

responses, grantees also identified the lack of buy-in or interest from students, staff, or 

administrators as another challenge to data collection. 

Another commonly reported challenge was the lack of time to prepare for the grant (64 percent). 

Several grantees reported that the September 2010 award affected their ability to adequately 

prepare for the implementation of their PEP projects. Grantees reportedly could have benefitted 

from more time to plan for and carry out data collection activities, deliver professional 

development prior to implementation, and secure buy-in from stakeholders. For example, in 

response to an open-ended survey question about implementation challenges, one grantee 

reported: 

Unfortunately, a school district’s fiscal year and the federal government’s fiscal 

year begin and end at different times. As such, by the time the school district is 

notified of being awarded the grant and then receiving the funding, half of the 

school year is over. This presents a problem for embedding provisions of the 

grant, as the master calendar priorities for the school year have already been 

discussed, timelines set, and expectations reinforced. Getting buy-in during the 

middle of the school year is difficult.

Fewer grantees reported challenges related to facilities, budget, and federal administrative 

requirements.

PEP Project Challenges and 39 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Lessons Learned Education Program: Final Report
Exhibit 23. 

Percentage of PEP Grantees That Reported Various Challenges to

Implementing Their PEP Grant

 Percentage of grantees

Challenge encountered All grantees

(n = 75)

District 

grantees

(n = 64)

CBO 

grantees

(n = 11)

Challenge(s) collecting GPRA measures 83 81 91

Lack of time to prepare for the start of the PEP grant 

following award notification 64 66 55

Competing academic priorities or pressures 48 47 55

Delays implementing grant 44 42 55

Equipment installation and/or set-up problems 43 44 36

Staff turnover 32 30 46

Difficulty coordinating across sites 29 30 27

Training obstacles 23 22 27

Difficulty with partners and/or external collaborators 21 19 36

Lack of facilities 16 17 9 

Budget-related obstacles 15 14 18

Federal grant monitors or other federal administrative 

obstacles 7 8 0 

Other 13 14 9 

No challenges 4 5 0 

Exhibit reads: Eighty-three percent of PEP grantees reported encountering challenges related to collecting performance measure

data. This percentage comprised 81 percent of district grantees and 91 percent of CBO grantees.

Source: Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant Recipients: Year 3, 2012, item 61 (n = 75).

First-time and repeat grantees reported similar challenges implementing their PEP grants. For 

both groups, collecting data on the performance measures was the most commonly reported 

implementation challenge (see Exhibit 24).

PEP Project Challenges and 40 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Lessons Learned Education Program: Final Report
Exhibit 24. 

Percentage of First-Time and Repeat PEP Grantees That Reported Various Challenges to 

Implementing Their PEP Grant

 Percentage of grantees

Challenge encountered

First-time 

grantees

(n = 61)

Repeat 

grantees

(n = 14)

Challenge(s) collecting GPRA measures 82 86

Lack of time to prepare for the start of the PEP grant following award notification 64 64

Competing academic priorities or pressures 48 50

Delays implementing grant 41 57

Equipment installation and/or set-up problems 41 50

Staff turnover 33 29

Difficulty coordinating across sites 28 36

Difficulty with partners and/or external collaborators 23 14

Training obstacles 21 29

Lack of facilities 18 7 

Budget-related obstacles 16 7 

Federal grant monitors or other federal administrative obstacles 7 7 

Other 15 7 

No challenges 5 0 

Exhibit reads: Eighty-two percent of first-time grantees reported encountering challenges related to collecting performance 

measure data; similarly, 86 percent of repeat grantees reported this challenge.

Source: Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant Recipients: Year 3, 2012, item 61 (n = 75).

The most difficult performance measure data for grantees to collect were the 

pedometer data (75 percent) and the 3DPAR data (49 percent). Relatively few 

grantees experienced difficulties collecting data using the 20-meter shuttle run 

(5 percent) and YRBS (15 percent).

The revised PEP established new performance measures, as well as standard data collection 

methods for each measure (see Exhibit 25 and Appendix A). For each measure, the Department 

required grantees to collect and aggregate data at the start of the project for a baseline measure, 

as well as four additional data collection periods each year. They had the option of collecting 

data from the entire population served or using sampling methods. 

PEP Project Challenges and 41 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Lessons Learned Education Program: Final Report
Exhibit 25. 

FY 2010 PEP Revised Performance Measures and Standardized Data Collection Methods

more times per day and ve

GPRA performance measure:

Data collection at baseline and four periods each year of 

the grant

Standardized data 

collection method Grade levels

Physical activity levels:

Percentage of students served by the grant who engage 

in 60 minutes of daily physical activity.

Pedometers K–12

Physical activity levels:

Percentage of students served by the grant who engage in 60 minutes 

of daily physical activity

3DPARa 5–12

Health-related fitness levels:

Percentage of students served by the grant who achieve 

age-appropriate cardiovascular fitness levels. 

Not specified K–elementary

Health-related fitness levels:

Percentage of students served by the grant who achieve ageappropriate cardiovascular fitness levels

20-meter shuttle run Middle–high 

school

Nutrition:

Percentage of students served by the grant who 

consume fruit two or more times per day and vegetables 

three or more times per day. 

Other assessment tools 

selected by grantees

Elementary–

middle

Nutrition:

Percentage of students served by the grant who consume fruit two or 

getables three or more times per day

Nutrition-related questions 

from the YRBS High school

Exhibit reads: Grantees used pedometers to measure physical activity levels for students in grades K–12. 

Note: a The 3DPAR is based on the Previous Day Physical Activity Recall (Pate et al., 2009). 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, 2010. 

When asked to identify the specific challenges associated with performance measures, grantees 

reported that difficulties stemmed primarily from the required data collection instruments. 

Specifically, grantees experienced the greatest challenges with the physical activity performance

measures, with the majority reporting moderate or extreme difficulty using pedometers 

(75 percent) and 49 percent reporting challenges using the 3DPAR to collect data (see Exhibit 26). 

In addition, in response to the open-ended question about implementation challenges, 51 percent of 

grantees expressed concerns about the reliability of the data collection methods (e.g., use of 

pedometers that did not always function properly and could be manipulated by students).

PEP Project Challenges and 42 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Lessons Learned Education Program: Final Report
Exhibit 26. 

Percentage of PEP Grantees That Reported Difficulty Collecting Data on the Performance 

Measures

Exhibit reads: Thirty-eight percent of PEP grantees reported that collecting pedometer data was extremely difficult, 37 percent 

reported moderate difficulty, and 26 percent reported slight or no difficulty.

Source: Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant Recipients: Year 3, 2012, item 54 (n = 75).

Challenges with pedometers included the loss or theft of equipment (reported as a challenge by 

over half of grantees in Year 1 and Year 3) and the general malfunction of the equipment 

(reported as a challenge by 41 percent of grantees in Year 1 and 56 percent in Year 3) 

(see Exhibit 27). These challenges reportedly affected project implementation. For example, 

in response to an open-ended survey question, one grantee reported:

It is a challenge to ask a student (first through third grade) to take responsibility 

of caring for a pedometer, for 24 hours a day, five days in a row. We have faced 

budget constraints due to the need to replace lost pedometers. 

Another noted that: 

Students wearing the pedometers for seven days [was a challenge]. Our quality 

of pedometer did not hold up to this type of use. We have spent more time sending 

our pedometers in for replacement, which has slowed down our data collection 

turnaround time. 

PEP Project Challenges and 43 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Lessons Learned Education Program: Final Report
Nearly half of grantees reported challenges with the second physical activity data collection 

instrument, the 3DPAR (49 percent). These challenges appeared to stem, in part, from the 

reliance on students’ self-report to obtain the data (reported as a challenge by 65 percent of 

grantees in Year 1 and 59 percent in Year 3) (see Exhibit 27). According to one survey 

respondent: 

Assuming that a fifth grader can accurately remember what they did two days 

prior and then decide whether that activity was light, moderate, or vigorous is 

difficult at best. Adults struggle with this concept. Even though I found the Food 

Log meaningful, again the data are so inaccurate when you are questioning 

elementary [age] students as to their food intake. Even though we say parents 

should be assisting their children, the reality is, most of these students are on 

their own. They have no parent support. 

Fewer grantees reported challenges gathering data using the 20-minute shuttle run (5 percent) or 

the YRBS, a measure intended for use with high school students (15 percent). 

A comparison of challenges reported in Year 1 with those reported in Year 3 revealed that the 

percentage of grantees reporting challenges decreased or remained relatively stable over time in 

almost all areas, except for challenges related to malfunctioning or faulty equipment. In this case, 

more grantees reported malfunctioning or faulty equipment as a challenge in Year 3 (from 

41 percent to 56 percent, a 15 percentage point increase). Grantees were able to address 

difficulties related to staffing during the course of the grant, with fewer reporting these 

difficulties as a challenge in Year 3 (16 percent) than in Year 1 (24 percent) (see Exhibit 27).

Exhibit 27. 

Percentage of PEP Grantees That Reported Various Types of Challenges Collecting Data 

on the Performance Measures

Challenge encountered Year 1 Year 3

Lack of proper data collection/reporting by students 65 59

Malfunctioning/faulty equipment 41 56

Loss or theft of equipment 55 56

Failure to return requested information 61 53

Coordinating data collection across sites 41 36

Lack of preparation time 47 21

Lack of proper data collection/reporting by personnel/staff 18 20

Lack of personnel/staff 24 16

Problems with sampling 7 5 

Requirements not clear 5 4 

Other 17 13

Exhibit reads: In Year 1, 65 percent of PEP grantees reported that the lack of proper data collection or reporting by students was a 

challenge; during Year 3, 59 percent of PEP grantees reported that it was a challenge.

Source: Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant Recipients: Year 1, 2011, item 64 (n = 76), and Year 3, 2012, item 61 (n = 75).

PEP Project Challenges and 44 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Lessons Learned Education Program: Final Report
CBO grantees reported greater difficulty implementing various components of their 

PEP projects than district grantees.

A larger percentage of CBO grantees reported challenges with partners (36 percent compared 

with 19 percent of district grantees) and staff turnover (46 percent compared with 30 percent of 

district grantees). More CBO grantees also experienced delays implementing their grants 

(55 percent compared with 42 percent of district grantees) (see Exhibit 23). Examples of partnerrelated challenges included limited experience working with the types of partners required by the 

grant, limited knowledge about maintaining partner involvement, and coordinating data 

collection activities with schools in partner districts. According to a CBO project staff member at 

a case study project: 

Another difficulty was time constraints during data collection. Because we are a 

CBO, we have access to the students at the public schools for one class period per 

week, and this was not enough time to do ALL of the surveys, 3DPARs, cardio 

tests, [and] BMI measures.

Regarding staff turnover, one CBO staff member stated, “You start a project and one person is 

excited about it, then they retire or move and somebody else comes in and doesn’t see it the same 

way.” Another described new staff buy-in to the program as a challenge. 

In addition to experiencing more challenges with partners, staff turnover, and delays, CBOs also 

reported greater difficulty than district grantees in collecting data on physical activity levels by 

using pedometers (82 percent reported extreme or moderate difficulty compared with 73 percent)

(see Exhibit 28). Finally, project staff from CBO case study projects reported difficulty 

collecting data from a consistent sample of students at several points in time because of the 

transience of their student populations. 

PEP Project Challenges and 45 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Lessons Learned Education Program: Final Report
Exhibit 28. 

Percentage of PEP Grantees That Reported Difficulty Collecting Data on the Performance 

Measures, by Grantee Type

Exhibit reads: Thirty-five percent of District PEP grantees reported that collecting pedometer data was extremely difficult,

38 percent reported moderate difficulty, and 27 percent reported slight or no difficulty.

Source: Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant Recipients: Year 3, 2012, item 54 (n = 75).

Grantees identified strategies to improve the data collection process and increase 

buy-in from stakeholders.

Data Collection by Grantees

Survey and case study respondents described lessons learned and strategies implemented to 

address the challenges experienced during the course of the grant. Some of the most commonly 

reported improvements involved the data collection process. One of the primary challenges 

experienced by grantees involved the use of pedometers to gather physical activity data. Loss, 

theft, malfunction, and misuse of these pedometers were common occurrences. To reduce these 

issues, some grantees restricted data collection (i.e., use of the pedometers) to school instead of 

allowing students to take the pedometers home. One project director suggested integrating 

pedometer use and logs into PE classes or after-school clubs so that students would be familiar 

with the equipment and increase the response rate during fitness assessments. Respondents also 

PEP Project Challenges and 46 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Lessons Learned Education Program: Final Report
suggested strategies to increase the efficiency of the data collection process. Suggestions included 

developing clear data collection protocols and time lines, using computer-based data collection, 

spreading out the dates of assessment windows to allow for more staff availability, and requiring 

teachers to use common assessments. According to one project director, “Learning how to 

effectively go about this was the biggest savior to us. Using spreadsheets, students organized into 

classes and groups; then we could start to feel that what we were providing was accurate data.”

Project directors also commented on the importance of getting others involved to facilitate the data 

collection process. For example, one project director suggested getting administrators such as the 

superintendent and school principals “to understand the grant and how it works and the 

importance of data collection.” Others described the importance of getting teachers involved.

Communication and Buy-In

In addition to suggestions for improving the data collection process, grantees discussed the 

importance of more general communication to facilitate project understanding and implementation 

among partners and other stakeholders and to encourage buy-in for PEP. Project directors reported 

several strategies that they believed would help improve communication, including frequent and 

early communication about the project with partners, teachers, and other stakeholders (physical 

education and non-physical education teachers). According to one project director, “Messages 

need to be shared over and over. The clarity of the message and the determination that it will not 

go away makes a difference. This grant is not just about things, it is truly about changing a 

culture.” A case study partner also suggested how to address this issue in the future: 

I would just say, [have] good communication with people in charge of [the] grant 

and have clear expectations of what your role [as a partner] is. Knowing what 

you’re supposed to do for the grant ahead of time is a good thing. When they’re 

starting to plan, be a part of that team. When they start talking about that piece—

food, nutrition education—find out what they would like from you so you can plan 

accordingly. 

Grantees also suggested building community awareness of PEP, sharing the successes of the 

program, and involving stakeholders (e.g., partners, teachers) in planning and implementing PEP

from the very beginning of the PEP grant. For example, one project director reported that “site 

administration must be a part of the input, planning, creation, and outcome design of the grant 

itself. The addition of teacher-leaders at each site in these beginning stages would assist greatly 

to foment involvement and buy-in before hiring and implementation begins.” Another indicated 

that it was necessary to “find or build champions for the cause (e.g., teachers, administrators, 

community LEAs [local education agencies], parents, school board members, students) who 

were positively affected by the PEP program.”

Finally, grantees mentioned the importance of communicating with other PEP grantees to 

problem-solve and obtain suggestions for improving PEP implementation. According to one 

project director, “What turned out to be the most valuable was meeting the grantees and 

establishing key people who are going through the same things you are and creating a 

connection with them. If I have any questions, I go to those people.” The exploratory analysis of 

repeat grantees and first-time grant recipients suggests that repeat grantees may have developed 

some useful strategies that facilitated their partner relationships and could be beneficial for 

projects that are new to PEP.

PEP Project Challenges and 47 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Lessons Learned Education Program: Final Report
VI. Summary and Conclusions

PEP is the Department’s only program focused exclusively on physical well-being. In 2010, the 

Department revised certain aspects of PEP to strengthen the program and support the 

development of comprehensive, integrated physical activity and nutrition programs and policies 

that ultimately would improve student health outcomes. 

This study examined how grantees implemented their PEP projects under the revised program 

regulations. As noted previously, the study is based solely on self-reported data, thus examining 

the quality and extent to which grantees implemented various activities was beyond the scope of 

the study. The following provides a brief summary of the findings as they relate to the key 

revisions of the program:

Assessing project needs: Grantees reported using the results of the SHI to develop project plans 

and address areas identified as weaknesses during the course of their PEP grant.

Policy development: Most grantees focused on improving the implementation of, and 

enhancing, existing policies rather than developing new ones. Grantees reported making 

significant changes to physical activity and nutrition policies.

Physical fitness, physical education and nutrition: Grantees used PEP funds to implement 

physical fitness, physical education, and nutrition-related activities that they were not engaged in 

prior to receiving PEP funds. However, grantees reported implementing activities and policy 

actions that addressed physical activity (including physical education) more often than nutrition 

activities and policy actions. 

Establishing partnerships with community entities: Grantees established partnerships that 

reportedly added value to their projects. Partners were generally selected because they offered 

knowledge and expertise that grantees did not have and were most involved in providing 

nutrition-related support. The primary challenges grantees experienced involved coordination 

and communication between project staff and partners and the diversion of time and resources 

from other PEP priorities. Despite some challenges, the majority of grantees reported that their 

PEP projects would be moderately or mostly sustainable at the end of the PEP grant period.

BMI data collection and use: Most grantees reported using or planning to use BMI data in the 

aggregate to assess the weight status of the student population over time, to assess project 

outcomes, and to inform physical activity and nutrition program planning. Grantees also used 

BMI data as a screening tool but experienced some challenges concerning communicating data 

to parents. 

Performance measures and standardized data collection methods: The most common 

implementation challenge experienced by grantees involved using the required data collection 

instruments (pedometers, student self-report measures) to assess the new performance measures. 

The findings suggest that grantees might benefit from additional support and technical assistance 

with (1) promoting healthy eating and nutrition; (2) communicating and coordinating with 

partners; (3) collecting data; and (4) using BMI data, including communicating with parents. 

Summary and Conclusions 48 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
References 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). Adolescent and school health: Childhood 

obesity facts. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/obesity/facts.htm

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2014). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance—United 

States, 2013. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports, 63(4). Retrieved from 

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss6304.pdf

Koplan, J. P., Liverman, C. T., & Kraak, V. I. (Eds.). (2005). Preventing childhood obesity: 

Health in the balance. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Linchey, J., & Madsen, K. A. (2011). State requirements and recommendations for school-based 

screenings for body mass index or body composition, 2010. Preventing Chronic Disease, 

8(5), A101. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3181175/

Mayo Clinic. (2010). Childhood obesity basics: Complications. Retrieved from 

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/childhood-obesity/DS00698/DSECTION=complications

National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. (2010). What are 

overweight and obesity? Retrieved from http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/healthtopics/topics/obe/ 

Nihiser, A. J., Lee, S. M., Wechsler, H., McKenna, M., Odom, E., Reinold, C., GrummerStrawn, L. (2009). BMI measurement in schools. Pediatrics, 124(Suppl. 1), 589–597. 

Retrieved from http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/124/Supplement_1/S89.full

Ogden, C. L., Carroll, M. D., Curtin, L. R., Lamb, M. M., & Flegal, K. M. (2010). Prevalence of 

high body mass index in US children and adolescents, 2007–2008. JAMA, 303(3), 242–249. 

Retrieved from http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=185233

Pate, R. R., Stevens, J., Webber, L. S., Dowda, M., Murray, D. M., Young, D. R., & Going, S. 

(2009). Age-related change in physical activity in adolescent girls. Journal of Adolescent 

Health, 44(3), 275–282. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture & U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2010). 

Dietary guidelines for Americans (7th ed.). Washington, DC: US Government Printing 

Office. Retrieved from 

http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2010/DietaryGuidelines2010.pdf 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. (2010). Carol M. White 

Physical Education Program CFDA #84.215F: Information and application procedures for 

fiscal year 2010 [Grant application, OMB No. 1894-0006]. Washington, DC: Author. 

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. (2010). Government 

Performance and Results Act guidance for the Carol M. White Physical Education Program 

(PEP), FY 2010 grantees. Washington, DC: Author. 

References 49 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2008). 2008 Physical activity guidelines for 

Americans. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from 

http://www.health.gov/paguidelines/pdf/paguide.pdf 

The White House. (2010). Presidential memorandum—Establishing a task force on childhood 

obesity. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-pressoffice/presidential-memorandum-establishing-a-task-force-childhood-obesity

References 50 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
Appendix A:

Government Performance and Results Act Guidance for 

the Carol M. White Physical Education Program, Fiscal 

Year 2010 Grantees31

31 Adapted from the following document, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. 

(2010). GPRA guidance for the Carol M. White Physical Education Program (PEP), FY 2010 grantees. 

Washington, DC: Author.

PEP GPRA Measure 1.1

1. Grantees must use pedometers to collect daily physical activity data from students. 

Grantees must require students to wear pedometers during each day in the four datacollection windows, as well as during the baseline data-collection window. Students 

should be instructed to wear the pedometers all day, every day of the data-collection 

window. 

2. The number of days a student must wear a pedometer depends on the student’s 

grade. Students in grades 5–12 are required to wear pedometers for seven consecutive 

days in each data-collection window. Students in grades K–4 must wear pedometers for 

four consecutive days in each data-collection window.32

32 Note that this portion of the guidance is written with the assumption that a grantee serves both K–4 students and 

grades 5–12 students. If your grant serves only one of these populations, disregard the instructions concerning 

the students in the other population.

 In both cases, pedometers, 

pedometer logs, and instructions should be sent home the school day immediately before 

the first day of each data-collection window. That way, each student can begin wearing 

the pedometer at the beginning of that window’s day 1. Similarly, pedometers and logs 

should be collected on the school day immediately following the final day of data 

collection, to ensure that all students have a full last day of data collection. If sample 

pedometer logs are sent home with students, they should be augmented with instructions 

(provided by the pedometer manufacturer) on how to operate the pedometer. 

3. Use pedometers to count both in-program and out-of-program physical activity. 

Physical activity can take place at the program site or on the student’s own time. Physical 

activity outside of the program site must count toward a student’s goal. So, students 

should wear pedometers all day, not just when at the program site. The only exception is 

that students should not wear a pedometer during the 20-m shuttle run used to collect data 

for GPRA measure 1.2, as explained later in this document. 

4. The number of steps each student takes must be recorded daily. Because GPRA

measure 1.1 counts daily activity, the number of steps counted by a pedometer must be 

recorded every day, for each student wearing a pedometer, during each data-collection 

Appendix A 51 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report

 
window. This recording could occur at home, before the student goes to bed. The use of a 

log is recommended for recording daily step counts. Additional information about 

recording steps is below.

5. Who records a student’s daily steps depends on a student’s grade. Students in grades 

5–12 should record their own daily step count. Students in grades K–4 should have a 

parent or guardian read the daily steps off the pedometer and record them. Regardless of 

who records the daily number of steps, students in grades 5–12 should put their names (or 

some other approved identifier) on the log. This is required because their logs may later 

be matched with their answers on a second data collection, as explained below. Parents of 

students in grades K–4 are asked to also put their child’s name on the log, but it is not 

necessary that they do so. 

6. When recording pedometer data, a student with 4,550 or more steps in a day is 

considered as having engaged in at least 60 minutes of physical activity that day. 

Research has shown that for adolescents, 4,550 steps can be assumed to constitute 60 

minutes of physical activity. So, students who have at least that many steps on their 

pedometers for a given day have met the threshold of 60 minutes of physical activity for 

that day. We recommend that students not be told this daily step goal to decrease the 

likelihood that students and/or parents and guardians inflate step counts to meet the goal.

7. If a student is absent during the data-collection window, his or her steps will be 

counted only for the days present in that data-collection window. If a student is 

absent for one or more days of any data-collection window, the student will not be 

expected to walk 4,550 steps that day/those days. But, he or she will be held to the daily 

step threshold on the other days in that data-collection window. Only students absent for 

all four days (in grades K–4) or all seven days (in grades 5–12) should be completely 

excluded from wearing pedometers and recording their steps. Such days will simply not 

be counted in the calculation of whether the student met the GPRA measure goal. 

However, if a log is blank or only partially filled in, that student’s data should be counted 

as incomplete and not included in the GPRA measure calculation. (Note that absences do 

not apply to weekend days. If students are asked to wear pedometers during a weekend, 

they do not need to be in a specific place for that data collection to occur. But, if a student 

is sick during a weekend day, that can be noted in the log.) 

If a student is absent the first day of a data-collection window, when pedometers are 

distributed, that student should be provided with a pedometer on the first day back. And 

steps can be counted beginning that day, even though it may not constitute an entire day. 

That student would record steps only for the remaining days in the data-collection 

window. Similarly, if a student is absent on the final day of a data-collection window, 

when pedometers and logs are turned in, he or she can return his or her pedometer and 

log on the first day back. 

Logs from students who were absent one or more days of a data-collection window will 

be treated slightly differently from those of the rest of the students. On logs containing 

absences, students will be held to the 4,550-step threshold only on the days present. For 

example, if a student in third grade is absent one of the days during a data-collection 

Appendix A 52 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
window, he/she will be held to the 4,550-step goal only on each of the three days he/she 

was not absent.

8. Grantees must report the number of students who met the 4,550-step threshold each 

day of the data-collection windows. A student’s step log will contain the number of 

steps walked each day of a data-collection window. (For students in grades 5–12, a 

completed log will contain step counts for seven days. For students in grades K–4, four 

days of data will be recorded.) Once these logs have been completed and returned to the 

grantee, he or she must calculate how many students met the 4,550-step threshold every 

day in that data-collection window. This should be done by first separating the logs of 

students in grades 5-12 from those of students in grades K-4. The same process will be 

performed on both sets of logs, but they should remain separated by grade, in these two 

groups. This separation is necessary because additional information on physical activity 

will be noted for students in grades 5-12, as is explained below. 

Grades K–4: put a check mark next to every day in a student’s log when the daily step 

count is 4,550 or higher. When all days on that log have been reviewed, if there are check 

marks next to all four days, that student is counted as having met the goal outlined in 

GPRA measure 1.1. If a student met the goal (over 4,550 steps for all days on the log), his 

or her log should be put in a pile labeled “Met GPRA measure 1.1 goal, K–4.” Logs of 

students who did not take at least 4,550 steps all four days on the log should be put in a 

pile labeled “Did not meet GPRA measure 1.1 goal, K–4.” 

Once all logs of students in grades K–4 have been categorized into one of these two piles, 

the number of logs in each pile should be counted and recorded in a table. This process 

will be repeated after every data-collection window, and the resulting numbers will 

eventually be combined and averaged. 

Grades 5–12: Follow the same process as above, except that a log must have seven 

checks to represent a student who met the goal. Also, as the logs are reviewed, do not 

place them into separate piles. The logs for students in grades 5–12 will be further 

examined after a second data collection, described below.

9. An additional data collection is required to determine daily physical activity for 

students in grades 5–12. Students in grades 5–12 will be asked to complete the 3-Day 

Physical Activity Recall (3DPAR), a self-report instrument designed to capture habitual 

physical activity of adolescents. 3DPAR uses a time-based recall approach over the 

previous three-day period and asks students to note when periods of physical activity 

occurred and whether that activity was light, moderate, hard, or very hard. The 

instrument can be completed during a single 30-minute session. A free version of the 

3DPAR instrument, as well as instructions for how to administer it, are available here: 

http://www.sph.sc.edu/USC_CPARG/3dpar.html.

Note that the instructions on the 3DPAR are written with the assumption that the record 

will be completed on a Wednesday and that students will recall physical activity from the 

previous Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday. This was done so that one of the three days fell 

on a weekend. Such timing is encouraged, so that at least one day asked about is a 

Appendix A 53 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
weekend day, but it is not required. If the 3DPAR is administered on a day other than a 

Wednesday, simply explain the discrepancy in the instructions to the students completing 

the record and explain that they are to record activity on the previous three days, 

regardless of the days of the week on which they fall. Students must put their name (or 

some other approved identifier) on the 3DPAR. This information will be important later 

because, as explained below, each student’s 3DPAR will be matched with his or her 

pedometer log.

• Count actual physical activity in the 3DPAR, not access to physical activity. 

When collecting data for GPRA measure 1.1 through the 3DPAR, students should not 

tabulate how much access they have to physical activity in the previous three days, 

but rather actual physical activity. In other words, students should not simply note the 

minutes of gym class they had. If a student participates in physical activity in gym 

class, that activity should be counted. But merely attending gym class should not 

necessarily count as physical activity.

• Count physical activity in a 30-minute block if it was the “main activity” of that 

time period. Students do not need to be engaged in physical activity for 30 

continuous minutes to be able to log a 30-minute block as one when physical activity 

occurred. Instead, they can label a 30-minute block as one with physical activity if 

that activity was the “main activity” of that block. Instruct students to reasonably 

interpret “main activity” themselves and to use it consistently throughout the 3DPAR. 

• Count both in-program and out-of-program physical activity in the 3DPAR. 

Physical activity can take place at the program site or on the student’s own time. 

Physical activity outside of the program site must count toward a student’s goal. So, 

students completing the 3DPAR should record activities throughout the day, not just 

when at the program site.

• Do not count the 20-m shuttle run in the 3DPAR. The 3DPAR is designed to 

collect data on normal activity levels. Students completing this record should be 

instructed not to record as physical activity the 20-m shuttle run used to collect data 

on GPRA measure 1.2 (as explained later in this document). This rule ensures that 

students who participated in the 20-m shuttle run in the previous three days are not 

advantaged over students who might do the run after completing their 3DPAR. 

• After administering the 3DPAR, note the students with at least 60 minutes of 

daily physical activity. On each completed 3DPAR, count the number of 30-minute 

blocks per day where a student noted moderate, hard, or very hard physical activity. If 

a student has two or more 30-minute blocks with moderate, hard, or very hard activity 

for a given day, put a check mark next to that day. If a student has at least two 30-

minute blocks with moderate, hard, or very hard activity all three days (represented 

by three check marks on his or her 3DPAR), then he or she met the GPRA measure 

1.1 goal. 

• Match all 3DPAR reports with pedometer logs. Once students in grades 5–12 have 

both completed the 3DPAR and turned in pedometer logs, and after these instruments 

have been reviewed, pair both instruments for each student. This can be done by 

alphabetizing each stack of instruments by student name (or other identifier). Then, 

Appendix A 54 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
for each pedometer log, find that student’s 3DPAR and staple the two instruments 

together. Instruments from students who did not complete both should still be kept. 

They will still be used to calculate GPRA measure 1.1; they will just not be stapled to 

a second instrument.

• Students in grades 5–12 may meet the GPRA measure 1.1 goal either through the 

pedometer log or the 3DPAR. Students in grades 5–12 have two opportunities to 

indicate that they met the goal of at least 60 minutes of daily physical activity—one 

through the pedometer log and one through the 3DPAR. Because of this, data from 

both sources should be examined to see if a student who did not meet the goal on one 

form did meet it on the other. 

For each student in grades 5–12, if the pedometer log has seven checks (indicating 

4,550 steps or more in all seven days) or if the 3DPAR has a check on all three days 

(indicating at least 60 minutes of moderate, hard, or very hard physical activity each 

day), then that student met the GPRA measure 1.1 goal. (If a student did not complete 

both instruments, use the one that he or she did complete to determine if he or she met 

the GPRA measure 1.1 goal.) The instruments of students who met the goal should be 

put in a pile labeled “Met GPRA measure 1.1 goal, 5–12.” Students not meeting the 

goal should have their instruments put in a pile labeled “Did not meet GPRA measure 

1.1 goal, 5–12.” 

Note that the information from the data-collection tool used for this GPRA measure 

(pedometers and the 3DPAR) cannot be combined. A student must meet the goal on 

all days using the pedometer or all days using the 3DPAR. In other words, suppose a 

student using a pedometer had over 4,550 steps in six out of seven days, but on the 

day with fewer than 4,550 steps, she indicated on the 3DPAR that she engaged in at 

least 60 minutes of physical activity. This student would not be considered as having 

met the goal for GPRA measure 1.1, since neither data-collection tool, by itself, 

demonstrated that she met the goal. If such a situation occurs, however, grantees can 

note it in the Explanation of Progress for GPRA measure 1.1. 

Once that process is complete, count the number of students with instruments in the 

“Met GPRA measure 1.1 goal, 5–12” pile. Then, count the number of students with 

instruments in the “Did not meet GPRA measure 1.1 goal, 5–12” pile. These two 

numbers should then be recorded in a table. This process will be repeated for each 

data-collection window. 

Appendix A 55 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
PEP GPRA Measure 1.2

1. For elementary school students, the data-collection method is not specified. Grantees 

that collect these data should choose a data-collection method that fits the needs of their 

program. 

Conduct a 20-m shuttle run with middle and high school students to determine if 

each student has met the age-appropriate cardiovascular fitness level. The 20-m 

shuttle run is a test that has been widely used in schools across the United States as part 

of physical education classes. It is designed to measure participants’ cardiovascular 

health by asking them to repeatedly run a 20-meter distance at increasing speeds. 

Grantees may use the 20-m shuttle run test from a commercial package if they choose to 

do so. The shuttle run provides a measure of students’ cardio-respiratory fitness, due to 

its predictive validity and correlation with maximal oxygen uptake, which indicates one’s 

cardiovascular or aerobic capacity. The test measures aerobic capacity by having the 

student run back and forth over 20-meters at increasing rates of speed over specific 

periods of time. 

Additional information on one specific version of the 20-m shuttle run can be found here: 

http://www.cooperinstitute.org/youth/fitnessgram/fitnessgram10/aerobic-capacity. A 

general description is below:

An audio recording is used with the run to signify, with a beep, when the next 20-meter 

lap is to begin. Participants run from the first side of the 20-meter distance when the first 

beep sounds. They begin to run back when the second one sounds. (If they reach the other 

side before the next beep sounds, runners wait at that side until they hear the beep.) As 

the test proceeds, the time between beeps shortens, giving the runners less time to 

complete each 20-meter lap. The first time a runner hears a beep before completing that 

20-meter lap, he or she should turn around and begin running back to the other side. The 

second time this happens, the participant’s shuttle run is over. 

Each runner should be paired with a partner who keeps track of the number of laps 

completed. The runner’s 20-m shuttle run score is the number of the last lap successfully 

completed. The runner’s partner will report that score to a record keeper, and the runner 

and partner will switch places for the next 20-m shuttle run.

2. Compare each middle and high school participant’s score to the goal for his or her 

age and gender. The table below shows the minimum number of laps that must be 

completed, by age and gender, for a participant to be considered as having met the GPRA

measure 1.2 goal. A record keeper should have a list of all students participating in the 

20-m shuttle run, as well as their age and gender. As each runner’s partner reports the 

runner’s number of successful laps, that number should be recorded next to the runner’s 

name. Then, the number should be compared against the goal number for someone of that 

age and gender. If the runner met or exceeded the goal number of completed laps, put a 

check next to that runner’s name.

Appendix A 56 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
Table 1. The minimum number of 20-meter laps that must be completed by middle and 

high school students to meet the GPRA measure 1.2 goal

Age Girls Boys

10 7 23

11 15 23

12 15 32

13 23 41

14 23 41

15 32 51

16 32 61

17 41 61

17+ 41 72

3. Count the number of students who met or exceeded the age-appropriate 

cardiovascular fitness level. After all middle and high school students have completed 

the 20-m shuttle run, and all scores have been compared to the appropriate goal from 

Table 1, those who have met or exceeded the minimum number of completed laps should 

have a check next to their name. Then, if data on the cardiovascular health of elementary 

school students were collected, determine which of those students met or exceeded the 

goal specified in the data-collection method used, and put a check next to those students’ 

names. Then count the number of students with a check and report that number in the 

GPRA measure 1.2 section of the Annual Performance Report (APR), ED 524B, Section 

A as the number of students in that data-collection window who reached age-appropriate 

cardiovascular health. This entire process will be completed during each data-collection 

window, and the results will be averaged. 

4. Pedometers and the 3DPAR should not capture activity during the 20-m shuttle run. 

Students completing the 20-m shuttle run will also be wearing pedometers, and those in 

grades 5–12 will also be completing the 3DPAR. Because the 20-m shuttle run is not part 

of these students’ regular physical activity, it should not be counted in either of those 

other data collection. So, students should be instructed to remove their pedometer during 

the 20-m shuttle run, and they should be instructed to not include the 20-m shuttle run in 

their 3DPAR.

Appendix A 57 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
PEP GPRA Measure 1.3

1. Programs serving students who are younger than high school are not required to 

use the YRBS questions, but may if they want to do so. Grantees serving elementary 

and middle school students who choose not to use the YRBS survey questions must 

choose an appropriate survey to obtain these data. Those survey questions must be 

approved by the grantee’s Federal Project Officer (FPO) before they are used. If using a 

survey other than YRBS, a description of the instruments, methods, and who records the 

data must be provided in the Annual Performance Report (APR).

2. Programs serving high school students must use questions from the 2011 Youth 

Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) to collect data for this measure. The 2011 YRBS 

survey is available here: 

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/yrbs/pdf/questionnaire/2011_hs_questionnaire.pdf. 

Survey questions 73–77 must be used.

3. Survey items about fruit and vegetable consumption refer to instances of 

consumption, not specific serving sizes. Grantees using the YRBS survey will notice 

that the survey questions do not ask about specific amounts of fruits and vegetables 

consumed. Instead, they ask about instances of fruit and vegetable consumption. This 

means that the interpretation of an instance is left up to the student; the portions within 

each instance are not specified by the questions. 

4. Survey responses about fruit and vegetable consumption must be converted to a 

GPRA-friendly format. The multiple-choice answers in each student’s survey must be 

collapsed to note whether he or she met the goal of eating two daily fruits and three daily 

vegetables specified in GPRA measure 1.3

Appendix A 58 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
Appendix B: 

Survey of 2010 Grant Recipients: Year 1 and Year 3 

This appendix includes only survey items from the Year 1 and Year 3 surveys that were included 

in the report. The Year 1 Survey was administered between August–September of 2011, and the 

Year 3 Survey was administered between November 2012–January 2013. Separate surveys were 

sent to district (referred to in the survey as Local Education Agency) and CBO grantees. These 

surveys differed in the following ways: 

1. References to “your LEA” versus “your CBO” in survey questions are dependent on the 

grantee type.

2. Slight wording differences exist in survey questions to reflect the unique roles of districts 

and CBOs. For example, item 3 of the Year 1 Survey asked district grantees “Does your 

PEP grant serve all schools in your school district?” For CBO grantees the corresponding 

question was, “Does your PEP grant serve the entire youth population affiliated with your 

CBO?”

3. The numbering of survey items in district and CBO surveys is slightly different. For 

example, district grantees were required to perform a needs assessment using the CDC’s 

School Health Index, but CBO grantees had the option, if not partnered with a district, to 

complete an alternative needs assessment tool. To capture this information, an additional 

survey item was added to the CBO survey. 

Data analysis combined corresponding questions across both surveys. This report identifies survey 

items based on the numbering of the district versions of the survey, which is included in this 

appendix. 

Appendix B 59 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
Survey of 2010 PEP

Local Education Agency (LEA) Grant Recipients: Year 1

Introduction 

The U.S. Department of Education’s Policy and Program Studies Service (PPSS) is 

conducting an evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical Education Program (PEP). As 

part of this evaluation, this survey asks about the design and implementation of your PEP 

grant. Your input is critical to understanding the implementation of PEP projects.

Survey Instructions

The survey will take approximately 60 minutes to complete. Not all items in the survey may 

apply to your PEP grant. Please follow the skip patterns noted next to particular items as 

you complete the survey – they will tell you whether or not you should skip ahead to a later 

question. If there is not an arrow next to your response and there is no indication that you 

should skip ahead, then just continue to the next item.

While this survey is designed for Project Directors of PEP grants, if necessary, please 

share the survey with other staff members knowledgeable about the project to ensure that 

the most complete and accurate information is recorded.

Your participation in this survey is mandatory under ESEA, Sec. 9306(a)(4). Your 

responses will be aggregated when presenting findings to the U.S. Department of 

Education (ED) and for reporting purposes.

Appendix B 60 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
PEP Grant Target Population

3. Does your PEP grant serve all schools in your school district? 

 . a. Yes ................................................................................. Skip to 5 

b. No ................................................................................... 

4. Please indicate the reason(s) why your PEP grant does not serve all the schools in your 

LEA. 

Reason not served Check all that 

apply

a. Grant only targeted to reach certain groups of students

(e.g., specific grades, students with special needs)

b. Not enough funding

c. Some schools did not agree to participate

d. Other, please specify: 

5. Please indicate the number of schools and number of students your PEP grant has served at 

each education level to date. If your PEP grant does not target or serve a given level, 

indicate “0.”

Education level

Number of 

Schools served 

to date

Number of 

Students 

served to date

a. Elementary _______ _______

b. Middle _______ _______

c. Secondary _______ _______

Appendix B 61 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
7. Of the population your PEP grant serves, please indicate if your grant has activities 

specifically targeted at reaching or accommodating any of the following groups.

Group Check all that 

apply

a. Students with physical disabilities

b. Students with learning disabilities

c. Boys

d. Girls

e. Hispanic/Latino students, of any race

f. Black or African American students

g. Native American students

h. Students of other race/ethnicity, please specify: 

i. ELL/LEP students

j. Students receiving free or reduced-price lunch

k. Other, please specify: 

Appendix B 62 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
PEP Grant Design and Implementation

9. Please provide the module score from the overall score cards for the four modules of the 

School Health Index (SHI) self-assessment tool completed during the grant application 

process. In addition, please indicate those areas your PEP grant’s School Health 

Improvement Plan addressed. 

Area 

Module 

Score

Addressed in School Health 

Improvement Plan—

Check all that apply

a. School health and safety policies and environment _______

b. Health education _______

c. Physical education and other physical activity programs _______

d. Nutrition services _______

12. Please indicate the healthy eating habits and good nutrition activities your LEA engaged 

in before receiving your current PEP grant, as well as those your PEP project has engaged 

in since receiving the grant.

Healthy eating habits and good nutrition activity

Before—

Check all 

that apply 

Since—

Check all 

that apply 

a. Promote nutrition awareness to parents and communities 

(e.g., seminars, nutrition information flyers)

b. Integrate nutrition education and nutritional themes into subject areas

c. Develop new curricula for nutrition education

d. Revise/expand existing curricula for nutrition education

e. Integrate school food service and nutrition education

f. Provide nutrition education pre-service and ongoing in-service training to teachers 

and staff 

g. Involve parents and the community in supporting nutrition education

h. Improve instruction on nutrition education

i. Provide training for school staff to identify unhealthy eating behaviors in students and 

make referrals to appropriate services

j. Facilitate coordination between food service and classroom instruction

k. Encourage healthy eating habits in after-school programs

l. Establish a district-wide nutrition education committee

m. Other, please specify: 

Appendix B 63 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
13. Has your PEP grant proposed to develop, revise, or enhance physical education and/or 

nutrition education curricula? 

a. Yes ................................................................................. 

b. No ...................................................................................  Skip to 16 .

14. Please select the best response related to your PEP grant’s use of the Physical Education 

Curriculum Analysis Tool (PECAT) or the healthy eating module of the Health Education 

Curriculum Analysis Tool (HECAT) to inform curricula development or revision. 





Use

PECAT—

Select one per 

column

HECAT—

Select one per 

column

a. Did not use as part of the grant application and do 

not plan to use over the course of the PEP grant 

period 

Skip to 16 .

b. Have not used, but plan to use during the PEP 

grant period

Skip to 16 .

c. Did not use as part of the grant application but 

have used during the period since the PEP grant 

was awarded

d. Used and submitted results as part of the PEP 

grant application

Appendix B 64 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
15. Please indicate how your PEP grant used the PECAT and/or HECAT to inform any 

curricula development or revision. 

Use 

PECAT—

Check all that 

apply

HECAT—

Check all 

that apply

a. Assessed the accuracy of the health, medical, and scientific information in 

written curriculum

b. Determined whether the curriculum content matches national standards

c. Determined whether there are protocols matched with each national standard to 

guide the assessments of student skills and abilities

d. Analyzed curriculum alignment with social norms among students, families, 

and community members

e. Assessed affordability of curriculum 

f. Determined if curriculum content, materials, and instructional strategies can be 

successfully implemented by teachers within available time and with existing 

facilities and equipment

g. Created a PE curriculum revision or development committee

h. Developed new lessons, lesson plans, or learning activities

i. Developed new student assessment protocols to align with existing or new 

lessons, lesson plans, or learning activities

j. Developed a scope and sequence

k. Other, please specify: 

16. Please indicate how your PEP grant intends to develop, revise, or enhance physical activity 

policies and food- and nutrition-related policies. 

Policy action

Physical 

activity—

Check all that 

apply

Nutrition—

Check all that 

apply

a. Develop new policies

b. Revise or expand covered areas in current policies

c. Update mandates of the current policies according to state/federal standards

d. Improve implementation of physical education policies

e. Strengthen policy review 

f. Strengthen policy monitoring

Appendix B 65 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
Policy action

Physical 

activity—

Check all that 

apply

Nutrition—

Check all that 

apply

g. Other, please specify: 

17. Using the scale below, please indicate the extent to which your LEA’s physical activity

policy elements have changed as a result of your PEP grant. 

1 

No 

changes

2 

Minor 

changes

3 

Moderate 

changes

4 

Significant 

Changes

Physical activity policy element Select one per row

a. Require the use of a standards-based sequential physical education (PE) curriculum 1 2 3 4

b. Require daily PE classes 1 2 3 4

c. Require that students are physically active for at least 50% of PE class time 1 2 3 4

d. Require that all PE classes are taught by credentialed, certified, and/or licensed PE 

instructors 1 2 3 4

e. Require daily recess periods 1 2 3 4

f. Recommend or offer physical activity through before- and/or after-school programs 

(e.g., clubs, intramurals) 1 2 3 4

g. Require the establishment of safer routes to school through coordination with the 

community 1 2 3 4

h. Require annual professional development and/or training for PE teachers 1 2 3 4 

i. Require and provide training to classroom teachers on how to incorporate physical 

activity into the classroom 1 2 3 4

j. Other, please specify: 1 2 3 4

Appendix B 66 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
18. Using the scale below, please indicate the extent to which your LEA’s food- and nutritionrelated policy elements have changed as a result of your PEP grant. 

1 

No 

changes

2 

Minor 

changes

3 

Moderate 

changes

4 

Significant 

Changes

Food- and nutrition-related policy element Select one per row

a. Require the use and integration of a standards-based nutrition education curriculum 

into exiting health education 1 2 3 4

b. Increase consistent access to free, potable water for students 1 2 3 4

c. Require the integration of nutrition/healthy eating concepts into other academic 

subjects (e.g., science, language arts) 1 2 3 4

d. Require annual professional development and/or training for teachers/staff who 

provide nutrition education 1 2 3 4

e. Require annual professional development and/or training for nutrition services staff 1 2 3 4

f. Require the adoption and implementation of strong nutrition standards for all foods 

sold and served in schools 

(e.g., vending machines, school stores, fundraisers, classroom parties)

1 2 3 4

g. Reduce availability of foods of minimal nutritional value (FMNV) 1 2 3 4

h. Restrict the marketing of unhealthy foods on school campuses 1 2 3 4

i. Other, please specify: 1 2 3 4

Appendix B 67 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
Involvement Partnerships and Collaborations

34. Did your PEP grant application include an official partner agreement? 

a. Yes ................................................................................. 

b. No ...................................................................................  Skip to 40 .

35. Please identify the type of community entities that your PEP project partnered with as part 

of an official partner agreement. In addition, using the scale provided, please indicate the 

average level of involvement each has had in implementing your PEP grant project to date. 

1 

Not involved 

at all

2 

Minor 

involvement

3 

Moderate 

involvement

4 

Significant 

involvement

Community entity Official partner—

Check all that apply

Involvement— 

Select one per row

a. College or university 1 2 3 4

b. CBO 1 2 3 4

c. External evaluation/monitoring agency 1 2 3 4

d. Hospital or clinic 1 2 3 4

e. LEA’s food service or child nutrition director 1 2 3 4

f. Local or State public health department/board of public health 1 2 3 4

g. Public park or recreational authority 1 2 3 4

h. Other LEA(s) 1 2 3 4

i. Other State or local government department 1 2 3 4

j. Other, please specify: 1 2 3 4

Appendix B 68 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
36. Please indicate the average level of involvement your PEP grant partners have had in the 

following areas. 

1 

No 

involvement

2 

Minor 

involvement

3 

Moderate 

involvement

4 

Significant 

involvement

Area Select one per row

a. Fitness education and assessment 1 2 3 4

b. Instruction in healthy eating habits and good nutrition 1 2 3 4

c. Instruction in motor skills and physical activities 1 2 3 4

d. Instruction in cognitive concepts about motor skills and physical fitness 1 2 3 4

e. Policy development 1 2 3 4

f. Providing nutrition services 1 2 3 4

g. Providing opportunities for students to develop positive social and cooperative skills 

through physical activity participation 1 2 3 4

h. Providing teachers with professional development opportunities related to nutrition or 

physical fitness 1 2 3 4

i. Other, please specify: 1 2 3 4

37. Please indicate any benefits related to your PEP grant’s partnerships.

Benefit Check all that apply

a. Allows personnel to focus on specific areas of expertise

b. Builds upon knowledge base

c. Capability of reaching more of the targeted population

d. Contributes additional personnel

e. Offers access to additional resources

f. Provides additional funding, either directly or through funding opportunities

g. Other, please specify: 

38. Please describe any factors that have facilitated your PEP grant’s partnership relationship(s).

__________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix B 69 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
39. Please indicate the extent to which the following have been challenges in maintaining your 

PEP grant’s partnerships to date. 

1 

Not a 

challenge

2 

Minor 

challenge

3 

Moderate 

challenge

4 

Significant 

challenge

Challenge Select one per row

a. Difficulty coordinating meetings and activities 1 2 3 4

b. Diversion of time and resources away from other priorities or obligations of the PEP 

grant

1 2 3 4

c. Entities are not knowledgeable of project goals 1 2 3 4

d. Difficulty communicating efficiently and in a timely manner 1 2 3 4

e. Diminished interest in project goals and activities 1 2 3 4

f. Lack of established effective communication channels 1 2 3 4

g. The governance structure of the partnerships does not function effectively 1 2 3 4

h. Lack of commitment 1 2 3 4

i. Different or conflicting perspectives 1 2 3 4

j. Dissimilarity in partners’ expectations on project activities 1 2 3 4

k. Interruption due to personnel turnover within community entities 1 2 3 4 

l. Not perceived as mutually beneficial 1 2 3 4

m. Inadequate staff support 1 2 3 4

n. Interruption due to personnel turnover in the primary PEP LEA 1 2 3 4

o. Other, please specify: 1 2 3 4

Appendix B 70 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
PEP Grant Budget

45. What was the total amount of your PEP award for the entire grant period?

$ ____________________________________________

46. Please provide the following information regarding your PEP grant budget.

i) Indicate the percent of your proposed PEP grant year 1 budget that was allocated to the

following categories; these should total to 100%.

ii) Using the scale below, please indicate the option that best describes how much the

proposed budget has needed to be revised to date for each of the categories.

1 

No 

revision

2 

Minor 

revision

3 

Moderate 

revision

4 

Significant 

revision

Budget categories % Allocated Select one per row

a. Personnel ________% 1 2 3 4

b. Fringe benefits ________% 1 2 3 4

c. Travel ________% 1 2 3 4

d. Equipment ________% 1 2 3 4

e. Supplies ________% 1 2 3 4

f. Contractual ________% 1 2 3 4

g. Training stipends ________% 1 2 3 4

h. Indirect costs ________% 1 2 3 4

i. Other, please specify: ________% 1 2 3 4 

TOTAL FUNDS: 100%

Appendix B 71 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
PEP Grant Measures and Outcomes

48. Please indicate if your LEA collected Body Mass Index (BMI) data prior to being awarded

the current PEP grant.

a. Yes ..................................................................................

b. No ...................................................................................

49. Please select from the following options related to BMI data collection those that apply to

your PEP grant.

 Skip to 52 .

BMI measures Check all that 

apply

a. BMI data collection was not proposed as part of the PEP grant

and there currently are no plans to collect BMI data

b. BMI data collection was included as part of the PEP grant

proposal

c. BMI data collection was implemented after the PEP grant was

awarded

d. BMI data were collected at the start of the 2010–2011 school

year (i.e., baseline/start of PEP project)

51. Please indicate how your PEP grant plans to use BMI measurements.

BMI use Check all that 

apply

a. To assess the weight status of the student population across time

b. To calculate percentage of students of different weight statuses among the population

c. To assess outcomes related to PEP grant activities

d. To compare the population trends at different sites/schools

e. To assess the weight status of individual students to identify those at risk for weightrelated health problems

f. To provide parents with information about their children’s BMI to help them take

appropriate action

g. To guide physical activity program development

h. To guide nutrition-related program development

i. To provide the data to school administrator(s)/board(s) to inform policy change

j. Other, please specify:

Appendix B 72 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
The following series of questions asks about your PEP grant’s plans and experiences 

regarding data collection of Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)

performance measures based on the following:

Measure 1.1 The percentage of students served by the grant who engage in 60 

minutes of daily physical activity. 

Measure 1.2 The percentage of students served by the grant who achieve ageappropriate cardiovascular fitness levels. 

Measure 1.3 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.

54. Please indicate which of the uniform data collection methods your PEP grant used. If the 

method was used, please indicate how difficult it was to collect the required GPRA 

performance measures using the scale provided. 

1 

Not 

difficult

2 

Slightly 

difficult

3 

Moderate 

difficult

4 

Extremely 

difficult

Data collection method Check all 

that apply

Select one

per row

a. Pedometer data for Measure 1.1 1 2 3 4

b. 3-Day Physical Activity Recall (3DPAR) data for Measure 1.1 1 2 3 4

c. 20-meter shuttle run data for Measure 1.2 1 2 3 4

d. Nutrition-related questions from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey 

Measure 1.3 1 2 3 4

Appendix B 73 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
PEP Grant Implementation and Challenges

64. Please indicate any challenges you have encountered to date while implementing the first 

year of your PEP grant. 

Implementation challenge Check all 

that apply

a. Budget-related obstacles (e.g., dry-up of matching funds)

b. Challenge(s) collecting GPRA measures

Please specify type of challenge(s):

c. Delays

Please specify type of delay(s):

d. Difficulty coordinating across sites

e. Difficulty with partners and/or external collaborators

f. Equipment installation and/or set-up problems 

Appendix B 74 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
Implementation challenge Check all 

that apply

g. Federal grant monitors or other federal administrative obstacles 

(e.g., accessing funds)

h. Lack of time to prepare for the start of the PEP grant following award notification

i. Staff turnover

j. Training obstacles (e.g., low attendance, longer than planned)

k. Competing academic priorities or pressures

l. Lack of facilities

m. Other, please specify: 

n. No challenges

65. Please describe the greatest difficulties your PEP grant has encountered in implementing the 

project as designed.

__________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

68. Please provide any additional information you found important related to your efforts in 

implementing the PEP grant as designed to date. 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

Thank you very much for completing this survey!

Appendix B 75 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
Survey of 2010 PEP

Local Education Agency (LEA) Grant Recipients: Year 3

Introduction 

The U.S. Department of Education’s Policy and Program Studies Service (PPSS) is 

conducting an evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical Education Program (PEP). As 

part of this evaluation, this survey asks about the design and implementation of your 

PEP grant. Your input is critical to understanding the implementation of PEP projects.

Survey Instructions

The survey will take approximately 60 minutes to complete. Not all items in the survey 

may apply to your PEP grant. Please follow the skip patterns noted next to particular 

items as you complete the survey – they will tell you whether or not you should skip 

ahead to a later question. If there is not an arrow next to your response and there is no 

indication that you should skip ahead, then just continue to the next item.

While this survey is designed for Project Directors of PEP grants, if necessary, please 

share the survey with other staff members knowledgeable about the project to ensure 

that the most complete and accurate information is recorded.

Your participation in this survey is mandatory under ESEA, Sec. 9306(a)(4). Your 

responses will be aggregated when presenting findings to the U.S. Department of 

Education (ED) and for reporting purposes.

Appendix B 76 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
PEP Grant Target Population

7. How many youth has your PEP grant served to date? 

Total number of youth: ___________________________ 

8. Please indicate the number of schools and number of students your PEP grant has been able 

to serve at each education level to date. If your PEP grant did not target or serve a given 

level, indicate “0.” 

Education level

Number 

of 

Schools

Number 

of 

Students

a. Elementary ______ ______

b. Middle ______ ______

c. Secondary ______ ______

9. Was there a particular segment of your PEP grant population that was more difficult to serve 

than others? 

a. Yes ................................................................................. 

b. No ...................................................................................  Skip to 11 .

10. Please describe the segment of your PEP grant population that has been more difficult to 

serve and why.

__________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix B 77 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
PEP Grant Design and Implementation

The following series of questions asks about the implementation of your PEP grant’s 

activities. As this survey is designed for the entire group of PEP grant recipients, it is 

likely that your particular PEP grant did not implement or plan to implement some of the 

listed activities. For these items, please indicate the appropriate response (e.g., “not 

addressed,” “not implemented”).

11. Using the scale below, please indicate the extent to which your PEP grant has addressed 

your LEA’s policies and practices areas that were in need of improvement, as identified by 

the School Health Index (SHI) self-assessment tool. If an area was not identified as an area 

in need of improvement, indicate “0.” 

0 

Not identified as 

an area in need 

of improvement

1 

Not 

addressed

2 

Partially 

addressed

3 

Mostly 

addressed

4 

Fully 

addressed

Area Select one per row

a. School health and safety policies and environment 0 1 2 3 4

b. Health education 0 1 2 3 4

c. Physical education and other physical activity programs 0 1 2 3 4

d. Nutrition services 0 1 2 3 4

14. Using the scale below, please indicate the extent to which your PEP grant has focused on the 

following physical fitness components. 

1 

No 

focus

2 

Minimal 

focus

3 

Moderate 

focus

4 

Significant 

focus

Physical fitness component Select one per row

a. Fitness education and assessment to help students understand, improve, or maintain 

their physical well-being 1 2 3 4

b. Instruction in a variety of motor skills and physical activities designed to enhance the 

physical, mental, and social or emotional development of every student 1 2 3 4

c. Development of, and instruction in, cognitive concepts about motor skills and 

physical fitness that support a lifelong healthy lifestyle 1 2 3 4

d. Opportunities to develop positive social and cooperative skills through physical 

activity participation 1 2 3 4

e. Opportunities for professional development for teachers of physical education to stay 

abreast of the latest research, issues, and trends in the field of physical education 1 2 3 4

Appendix B 78 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
15. Using the scale below, please indicate the extent to which your PEP grant has implemented 

various physical activities.

1 

Not 

implemented

2 

Partially 

implemented

3 

Mostly 

implemented

4 

Fully 

implemented

Physical activity Select one per row

a. Develop or redesign physical education policies 1 2 3 4

b. Create a new physical education program 1 2 3 4

c. Improve an existing physical education program 1 2 3 4

d. Improve physical education instruction related to physical fitness 1 2 3 4

e. Improve physical education instruction specific to physical activity 1 2 3 4

f. Improve physical education instruction related to cognitive concepts 1 2 3 4

g. Improve personnel/staff capacity to provide physical education instruction (e.g., 

professional development) 1 2 3 4

h. Improve student engagement in physical activities external to school-based curricula 1 2 3 4

i. Increase family involvement in student physical fitness 1 2 3 4

j. Promote social and cooperative skills in physical fitness 1 2 3 4

k. Other, please specify: 1 2 3 4

16. Using the scale below, please indicate the extent to which your PEP grant has implemented 

various healthy eating habits and good nutrition activities.

1 

Not 

implemented

2 

Partially 

implemented

3 

Mostly 

implemented

4 

Fully 

implemented

Healthy eating habits and good nutrition activity Select one per row

a. Promote nutrition awareness to parents and communities 

(e.g., seminars, nutrition information flyers) 1 2 3 4

b. Integrate nutrition education and nutritional themes into subject areas 1 2 3 4

c. Develop new curricula for nutrition education 1 2 3 4

d. Revise/expand existing curricula for nutrition education 1 2 3 4

e. Integrate school food service and nutrition education 1 2 3 4

f. Provide nutrition education pre-service and ongoing in-service training to teachers 

and staff 1 2 3 4

Appendix B 79 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
Healthy eating habits and good nutrition activity Select one per row

g. Involve parents and the community in supporting nutrition education 1 2 3 4

h. Improve instruction on nutrition education 1 2 3 4

i. Provide training for school staff to identify unhealthy eating behaviors in students 

and make referrals to appropriate services 1 2 3 4

j. Facilitate coordination between food service and classroom instruction 1 2 3 4

k. Encourage healthy eating habits in after-school programs 1 2 3 4

l. Establish a district-wide nutrition education committee 1 2 3 4

m. Other, please specify: 1 2 3 4

17. Has your PEP grant project developed, revised, or enhanced physical education and/or 

nutrition education curricula? 

a. Yes ................................................................................. 

b. No  . ................................................................................... Skip to 22

18. Has your PEP grant project used the Physical Education Curriculum Analysis Tool 

(PECAT) to inform curricula development and/or changes? 

a. Yes ................................................................................. 

b. No  . ................................................................................... Skip to 20 

19. Please indicate how useful the PECAT was in revising, enhancing, or developing physical 

education curricula. If your PEP grant has not addressed a specific area of curricula 

development, indicate “0.” 

0 

Not 

used

1 

Not 

useful

2 

Slightly 

useful

3 

Moderately 

useful

4 

Extremely 

useful

Curricula development area Select one 

per row

a. Assessing the accuracy of the health, medical, and scientific information in written 

curriculum 0 1 2 3 4

b. Determining whether the curriculum content matches national standards 0 1 2 3 4

c. Determining whether there are protocols matched with each national standard to guide the 

assessments of student skills and abilities 0 1 2 3 4

d. Analyzing curriculum alignment with social norms among students, families, and community 

members 0 1 2 3 4

e. Assessing affordability of curriculum 0 1 2 3 4

f. Determining if curriculum content, materials, and instructional strategies can be successfully 

implemented by teachers within available time and with existing facilities and equipment 0 1 2 3 4

Appendix B 80 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
Curricula development area Select one 

per row

g. Creating a PE curriculum revision or development committee 0 1 2 3 4

h. Developing new lessons, lesson plans, or learning activities 0 1 2 3 4

i. Developing new student assessment protocols to align with existing or new lessons, lesson 

plans, or learning activities 0 1 2 3 4

j. Developing a scope and sequence 0 1 2 3 4

k. Informing and/or changing PE policy, funding, or staffing 0 1 2 3 4

l. Other, please specify: 0 1 2 3 4

20. Has your PEP grant project used the healthy eating module of the Health Education 

Curriculum Analysis Tool (HECAT) to inform curricula development and/or changes? 

a. Yes ................................................................................. 

b. No  . ................................................................................... Skip to 22 

21. Please indicate how useful the HECAT was in revising, enhancing, or developing nutritionrelated education curricula. If your PEP grant has not addressed a specific area of 

curricula development, indicate “0.” 

0 

Not 

used

1 

Not 

useful

2 

Slightly 

useful

3 

Moderately 

useful

4 

Extremely 

useful

Curricula development area Select one 

per row

a. Assessing the accuracy of the health, medical, and scientific information in written 

curriculum 0 1 2 3 4

b. Determining whether the curriculum content matches national standards 0 1 2 3 4

c. Determining whether there are protocols matched with each national standard to guide the 

assessments of student skills and abilities 0 1 2 3 4

d. Analyzing curriculum alignment with social norms among students, families, and community 

members 0 1 2 3 4

e. Assessing affordability of curriculum 0 1 2 3 4

f. Determining if curriculum content, materials, and instructional strategies can be successfully 

implemented by teachers within available time and with existing facilities and equipment 0 1 2 3 4

g. Creating a nutrition-related curriculum revision or development committee 0 1 2 3 4

h. Developing new lessons, lesson plans, or learning activities 0 1 2 3 4

i. Developing new student assessment protocols to align with existing or new lessons, lesson 

plans, or learning activities 0 1 2 3 4

j. Developing a scope and sequence 0 1 2 3 4

Appendix B 81 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
Curricula development area Select one 

per row

k. Informing and/or changing nutrition-related policy, funding, or staffing 0 1 2 3 4

l. Other, please specify: 0 1 2 3 4

22. Using the scale below, please indicate the extent to which your PEP grant has implemented 

any of the following actions related to physical activity policies. 

1 

Not 

implemented

2 

Partially 

implemented

3 

Mostly 

implemented

4 

Fully 

implemented

Policy action Select one per row

a. Developed new policies 1 2 3 4

b. Revised or expanded covered areas in current policies 1 2 3 4

c. Updated mandates of the current policies according to state/federal standards 1 2 3 4

d. Improved implementation of physical education policies 1 2 3 4

e. Strengthened policy review 1 2 3 4

f. Strengthened policy monitoring 1 2 3 4

g. Other, please specify: 1 2 3 4

23. Using the scale below, please indicate the extent to which your LEA’s physical activity 

policy elements have changed as a result of your PEP grant. 

1 

No 

changes

2 

Minor 

changes

3 

Moderate 

changes

4 

Significant 

changes

Physical activity policy element Select one per row

a. Require the use of a standards-based sequential physical education (PE) curriculum 1 2 3 4

b. Require daily PE classes 1 2 3 4

c. Require that students are physically active for at least 50% of PE class time 1 2 3 4 

d. Require that all PE classes are taught by credentialed, certified, and/or licensed PE 

instructors 1 2 3 4

e. Require daily recess periods 1 2 3 4

f. Recommend or offer physical activity through before- and/or after-school programs 

(e.g., clubs, intramurals) 1 2 3 4

Appendix B 82 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
Physical activity policy element Select one per row

g. Require the establishment of safer routes to school through coordination with the 

community 1 2 3 4

h. Require annual professional development and/or training for PE teachers 1 2 3 4

i. Require and provide training to classroom teachers on how to incorporate physical 

activity into the classroom 1 2 3 4

j. Other, please specify: 1 2 3 4 

24. Using the scale below, please indicate the extent to which your PEP grant has implemented 

any of the following actions related to food- and nutrition-related policies. 

1 

Not 

implemented

2 

Partially 

implemented

3 

Mostly 

implemented

4 

Fully 

implemented

Policy action Select one per row

a. Developed new policies 1 2 3 4

b. Revised or expanded covered areas in current policies 1 2 3 4

c. Updated mandates of the current policies according to state/federal standards 1 2 3 4

d. Improved implementation of physical education policies 1 2 3 4

e. Strengthened policy review 1 2 3 4

f. Strengthened policy monitoring 1 2 3 4

g. Other, please specify: 1 2 3 4

25. Using the scale below, please indicate the extent to which your LEA’s food- and nutritionrelated policy elements have changed as a result of your PEP grant. 

1 

No 

changes

2 

Minor 

changes

3 

Moderate 

changes

4 

Significant 

changes

Food- and nutrition-related policy element Select one per row

a. Require the use and integration of a standards-based nutrition education curriculum 

into existing health education 1 2 3 4

b. Increase consistent access to free, potable water for students 1 2 3 4

c. Require the integration of nutrition/healthy eating concepts into other academic 

subjects (e.g., science, language arts) 1 2 3 4

d. Require annual professional development and/or training for teachers/staff who 

provide nutrition education 1 2 3 4

Appendix B 83 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
Food- and nutrition-related policy element Select one per row

e. Require annual professional development and/or training for nutrition services staff 1 2 3 4

f. Require the adoption and implementation of strong nutrition standards for all foods 

sold and served in schools (e.g., vending machines, school stores, fundraisers, 

classroom parties)

1 2 3 4

g. Reduce availability of foods of minimal nutritional value (FMNV) 1 2 3 4

h. Restrict the marketing of unhealthy foods on school campuses 1 2 3 4

i. Other, please specify: 1 2 3 4

Appendix B 84 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
Collaborations and Partnerships

32. Did your PEP grant application include an official partner agreement? 

a. Yes ................................................................................. 

b. No  . ................................................................................... Skip to 40

33. Please identify the type of community entities that your PEP project partnered with as part 

of an official partner agreement and indicate if they did not continue the partnership to 

date. In addition, using the scale provided, please specify the average level of involvement 

each had in implementing your PEP grant project. 

1 

No 

involvement

2 

Minor 

involvement

3 

Moderate 

involvement

4 

Significant 

involvement

Community entity

Official 

partner—

Check all that 

apply

Left 

partnership—

Check all that 

apply

Involvement—

Select one 

per row

a. College or university 1 2 3 4

b. CBO 1 2 3 4

c. External evaluation/monitoring agency 1 2 3 4

d. Hospital or clinic 1 2 3 4

e. LEA’s food service or child nutrition director 1 2 3 4

f. Local or State public health department/board of public 

health 1 2 3 4

g. Public park or recreational authority 1 2 3 4

h. Other LEA(s) 1 2 3 4

i. Other State or local government department 1 2 3 4

j. Other, please specify: 1 2 3 4

Appendix B 85 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
34. Using the scale below, please indicate the average level of involvement your PEP grant 

partners have had in the following areas over the course of your PEP grant. 

1 

No 

involvement

2 

Minor 

involvement

3 

Moderate 

involvement

4 

Significant 

involvement

Area Select one per row

a. Fitness education and assessment 1 2 3 4

b. Instruction in healthy eating habits and good nutrition 1 2 3 4

c. Instruction in motor skills and physical activities 1 2 3 4

d. Instruction in cognitive concepts about motor skills and physical fitness 1 2 3 4

e. Policy development 1 2 3 4

f. Providing nutrition services 1 2 3 4

g. Providing opportunities for students to develop positive social and cooperative skills 

through physical activity participation 1 2 3 4

h. Providing teachers with professional development opportunities related to nutrition or 

physical fitness 1 2 3 4

i. Other, please specify: 1 2 3 4

35. Please indicate any benefits related to your PEP grant’s partnerships. 

Benefit Check all that 

apply

a. Allowed personnel to focus on specific areas of expertise

b. Built upon knowledge base

c. Provided capability to reach more of the targeted population

d. Contributed additional personnel

e. Offered access to additional resources

f. Provided additional funding, either directly or through funding opportunities

g. Interested in collaborating to sustain PEP activities after the grant cycle ends

h. Other, please specify: 

Appendix B 86 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report

36. Please describe any factors that have facilitated your PEP grant’s partnership relationship(s).

__________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________ 
37. Using the scale below, please indicate the extent to which the following have been 

challenges in maintaining PEP grant partnerships. 

1 

Not a 

challenge

2 

Minor 

challenge

3 

Moderate 

challenge

4 

Significant 

challenge

Challenge Select one per row

a. Difficulty coordinating meetings and activities 1 2 3 4

b. Diversion of time and resources away from other priorities or obligations of the PEP 

grant

1 2 3 4

c. Entities are not knowledgeable of project goals 1 2 3 4

d. Difficulty communicating efficiently and in a timely manner 1 2 3 4

e. Diminished interest in project goals and activities 1 2 3 4

f. Lack of established effective communication channels 1 2 3 4

g. The governance structure of the partnership(s) has not functioned effectively 1 2 3 4

h. Lack of commitment 1 2 3 4

i. Different or conflicting perspectives 1 2 3 4

j. Dissimilarity in expectations by different partners on project activities 1 2 3 4

k. Interruptions due to personnel turnover within community entities 1 2 3 4

l. Not perceived as mutually beneficial 1 2 3 4

m. Inadequate staff support 1 2 3 4

n. Interruptions due to personnel turnover in the primary PEP LEA 1 2 3 4

o. Other, please specify: 1 2 3 4

38. Using the scale below, please indicate to what extent it is expected your PEP grant 

partnerships will continue after the grant period ends. 

1 

Will not 

continue 

collaboration

2 

Minimal 

collaboration

3 

Moderate 

collaboration

4 

Significant 

collaboration

39. Using the scale below, please select the option that best describes how valuable the 

partnerships have been to your PEP grant. 

1 

Not 

valuable

2 

Minimally 

valuable

3 

Moderately 

valuable

4 

Extremely 

valuable

Appendix B 87 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
PEP Grant Budget

47. Please provide the following information regarding your PEP grant budget. 

i) Indicate the percent of your proposed PEP grant total budget that was allocated to the 

following categories; these should total to 100%. 

ii) Using the scale below, please indicate the option that best describes how much the 

proposed budget has needed to be revised to date for each of the categories. 

1 

No 

revision

2 

Minor 

revision

3 

Moderate 

revision

4 

Significant 

revision

Budget categories % Allocated Select one per row

a. Personnel ________% 1 2 3 4

b. Fringe benefits ________% 1 2 3 4

c. Travel ________% 1 2 3 4

d. Equipment ________% 1 2 3 4

e. Supplies ________% 1 2 3 4

f. Contractual ________% 1 2 3 4

g. Training stipends ________% 1 2 3 4

h. Indirect costs ________% 1 2 3 4

i. Other, please specify: ________% 1 2 3 4

TOTAL FUNDS: 100%

Appendix B 88 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
PEP Grant Measures and Outcomes

51. Please indicate if Body Mass Index (BMI) data have been collected during your PEP grant. 

a. Yes ................................................................................. 

b. No  . ................................................................................... Skip to 54 

53. Please indicate how your PEP grant has used and/or plans to use BMI measurements. 

BMI use Check all that 

apply

a. To assess the weight status of the student population across time

b. To calculate percentage of students of different weight statuses among the population

c. To assess outcomes related to PEP grant activities

d. To compare the population trends at different sites/schools

e. To assess the weight status of individual students to identify those at risk for weightrelated health problems

f. To provide parents with information about their children’s BMI to help them take 

appropriate action

g. To guide physical activity program development

h. To guide nutrition-related program development

i. To provide the data to school administrator(s)/board(s) to inform policy change 

j. Other, please specify: 

The following series of questions asks about your PEP grant’s plans and experiences 

regarding data collection of Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)

performance measures based on the following:

Measure 1.1 The percentage of students served by the grant who engage in 60 

minutes of daily physical activity. 

Measure 1.2 The percentage of students served by the grant who achieve ageappropriate cardiovascular fitness levels. 

Measure 1.3 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.

Appendix B 89 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
54. Please indicate which of the uniform data collection methods your PEP grant has used. If the 

method has been used, please indicate how difficult it was to collect the required GPRA 

performance measures using the scale provided. 

1 

Not 

difficult

2 

Slightly 

difficult

3 

Moderately 

difficult

4 

Extremely 

difficult

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

Data collection method Check all 

that apply

Select one 

per row

a. Pedometer data for Measure 1.1

b. 3-Day Physical Activity Recall (3DPAR) data for Measure 1.1

c. 20-meter shuttle run data for Measure 1.2

d. Nutrition-related questions from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey 

Measure 1.3

Appendix B 90 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
PEP Grant Challenges

61. Please indicate any challenges encountered while implementing your PEP grant. 

Implementation challenge Check all 

that apply

a. Budget-related obstacles (e.g., dry-up of matching funds)

b. Challenge(s) collecting GPRA measures

Please specify type of challenge(s):

c. Delays

Please specify type of delay(s): 

d. Difficulty coordinating across sites

e. Difficulty with partners and/or external collaborators

f. Equipment installation and/or set-up problems 

g. Federal grant monitors or other federal administrative obstacles 

(e.g., accessing funds)

Appendix B 91 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
Implementation challenge Check all 

that apply

h. Lack of time to prepare for the start of the PEP grant following award notification

i. Staff turnover

j. Training obstacles (e.g., low attendance, longer than planned)

k. Competing academic priorities or pressures

l. Lack of facilities

m. Other, please specify: 

n. No challenges

................................................................................. 

 . ................................................................................... 

62. Please describe the greatest difficulties your PEP grant has encountered to date in 

implementing the project as designed.

__________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

63. Has your PEP grant implemented any changes and/or strategies to address challenges?

a. Yes

b. No 

Appendix B 92 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report

Skip to 65 
PEP Grant Sustainability

65. Overall, how sustainable do you expect your project will be at the end of the PEP grant 

period? 

67. Please describe how your project plans to obtain complete sustainability post the PEP grant 

period. 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

68. Has your project implemented any plans to maintain its activities after the PEP grant cycle 

ends? 

a. Yes .................................................................................

b. No ................................................................................... 

69. Please identify what you see as the primary strengths of your PEP grant project. 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

70. What lessons have been learned that could be carried forward when implementing future 

activities related to your project or future PEP projects?

__________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix B 93 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
71. Please provide any additional information you found important related to your efforts in 

implementing the PEP grant as designed. 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

72. Please provide any additional suggestions you have to improve the PEP grant process 

(e.g., application, project design, performance measures). 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

__________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix B 94 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
Appendix C: 

Partnership Data Limitations

The partnership findings presented in this report reflect PEP grantees’ responses to survey 

questions regarding official partners. Official partners were community entities with which 

grantees were required to establish collaborations to receive priority points. As a part of their 

applications, grantees had to submit a partnership agreement that detailed the participation of 

these required partners in order to receive the points. Unofficial partners were community 

entities with which grantees established collaborations that were not part of an official partner 

agreement.

An analysis of the partnership data revealed the following limitations in grantees’ reporting of 

official partners.

1. Fifty-nine of the 76 grantees indicated, on both surveys, that they formed official 

partnerships. Although 72 grantees reported forming official partnerships in Year 1, only 

61 of those grantees reported such partnerships in Year 3. In addition, two grantees 

reported forming official partnerships in Year 3 but not Year 1. 

2. Sixty-seven grantees received competitive preference points, which was less than the 

number of grantees who reported establishing official partnerships on the Year 1 Survey 

and more than what was reported during Year 3. 

3. Case study data suggest that, in practice, grantees did not differentiate between official 

and unofficial partnerships. 

4. The surveys asked identical questions about grantees’ experiences with official and 

unofficial partnerships, but the survey design did not allow us to combine data on official 

and unofficial partnerships. The survey asked grantees to select the types of community 

entities with which they established partnerships (e.g., college or university, hospital or 

clinic), but did not ask grantees to indicate the number of partnerships they established as 

part of their PEP grant. In addition, the survey asked partnership-related questions at an 

aggregate level (i.e., grantees were asked to report on the average level of involvement 

for all official partners [and unofficial partners] combined, rather than by partner type). It 

is likely that grantees did not have an equal number of official and unofficial partners.

Because we do not have data on the exact number of official and unofficial partnerships 

formed by each grantee, we cannot accurately weight the data to obtain valid ratings.

A comparison of aggregated responses between official and unofficial partnerships did not 

demonstrate major differences that necessitated discussion in the final report. Because of this 

result and the aforementioned limitations, the section on partnerships reports information about 

official partnerships and only includes grantees who reported forming official partnerships on 

both surveys. 

Appendix C 95 Evaluation of the Carol M. White Physical

Education Program: Final Report
The Department of Education’s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation 

for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

www.ed.gov