Evaluation Brief: 

The Carol M. White Physical Education Program

Project Implementation During Year 1 of the Grant

This brief was prepared for 

the U.S. Department of 

Education under Contract 

Number ED-04-CO0025/0018 with the 

American Institutes for 

Research (AIR); Tanya 

Taylor and Wehmah Jones 

are the authors. Erica Lee 

serves as the contracting 

officer’s representative 

(COR) for the Evaluation of 

the Carol M. White Physical 

Education Program. 

August 2012 

Overview nutrition, requiring nutrition- and physicalactivity-related policy development,

establishing community partnerships for a 

collaborative approach to youth fitness and 

nutrition, and implementing new youth 

outcome measures. This brief provides an 

overview of the new projects funded by FY 

2010 PEP grant awards. These projects 

represent the first cohort of grantees since the 

revision of PEP. This brief reports on 

implementation processes, activities, and 

grantee-reported accomplishments and 

challenges during the first year of the grants. 

A final report will document project activities 

and experiences over the three-year grant 

cycle.

In 2010, the U.S. Department of Education 

(the Department) issued regulations for the 

Carol M. White Physical Education Program 

(PEP) to reflect best practices and research 

for improving children’s and adolescents’ 

health and fitness. The goal was to 

encourage physical activity and healthy eating 

and help students meet their state standards 

for physical education. The primary focus of 

PEP continues to be the development of highquality physical education programs and an 

environment supportive of physical activity. 

However, PEP has expanded in a variety of 

ways, including an additional focus on 

promoting healthy eating habits and good 

Year 1 Highlights

• The 76 FY 2010 new PEP grantees reported serving almost 300,000 youths across the 

nation.

• All but one project formed community partnerships, indicating the success of the revised 

PEP’s emphasis on promoting collaboration.

• All but three grantees either collected or planned to collect body mass index (BMI) data, a 

new PEP competitive preference priority.1

• Seventy-six percent of PEP grantees reported implementing the majority of planned Year 

1 activities, with 9 percent of those indicating the implementation of all planned activities.

• Frequently reported PEP project implementation challenges included issues with 

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) data collection and a lack of time to 

prepare for the start of the PEP grant following the award notification.

• The most common reported challenges with GPRA data collection included the lack of 

proper reporting by youths, loss or theft of equipment, and failure to return information.

 1 An application that meets the requirements of a competitive preference priority is awarded additional points.
2 

Childhood obesity has tripled over the last three 

decades in the United States (Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention [CDC] 2011), making the 

physical fitness of America’s youths a topic of 

national attention. The percentage of children aged 

6–11 years in the United States who were obese 

increased from 7 percent in 1980 to nearly 20 

percent in 2008. Similarly, the percentage of 

adolescents aged 12–19 years who were obese 

increased from 5 to 18 percent over the same 

period.2 In 2010, the Department revised PEP, its 

sole program focused on physical education, 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, 10). The new 

direction of PEP applies best practices based on 

research and program evaluation to encourage 

physical activity and healthy eating and help 

students meet their state standards for physical 

education. It also represents the Department’s 

efforts to align relevant program objectives with 

First Lady Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move! Initiative, 

which is dedicated to solving the problem of 

childhood obesity within a generation.

3

Currently administered through the Department’s 

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

(OESE), PEP is authorized by the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as 

amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

(NCLB), to provide grant funds to projects led by 

school districts (districts) or community-based 

organizations (CBOs) to initiate, expand, or 

enhance physical education programs. While the

primary focus of the program remains on 

developing high-quality physical education 

 2 Based on the National Institutes of Health, National 

Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s (2010) definition of 

obesity as having excess body fat. 3 Let’s Move! was launched in February 2010. See 

“About Let’s Move!” accessed Jan. 13, 2012. 

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

programs and an environment supportive of 

physical activity, the Department’s revisions to PEP 

included: 

♦ creating an absolute priority4 such that projects 

must include both instruction in healthy eating 

habits and nutrition and at least one of the five 

authorized physical fitness activities;

♦ requiring projects to develop, update, or 

enhance nutrition and physical activity policies;

♦ encouraging partnerships with community 

entities and the collection and use of BMI5 by 

adding these new elements in the form of two 

competitive preference priorities; and

♦ establishing new GPRA measures.

The Department aimed to fund comprehensive PEP 

projects, supported at the community level, that 

integrate physical activity programs and policies

with nutrition education and policies. The FY 2010 

new PEP grantees represent a diverse group of 

agencies and organizations from many different 

regions of the country. Grantees consist of a variety 

of 64 district-led projects (e.g., public school 

districts, charter schools) and 12 CBO-led projects 

(e.g., Boys and Girls Clubs of America) from 25 

states and diverse locales.6

To gain insight into how new PEP projects are 

administered and implemented, the Department’s 

Policy and Program Studies Service (PPSS) 

awarded a contract to conduct a comprehensive 

process evaluation of the projects funded during the 

first grant cycle (up to three years) of the revised

program. This brief focuses on the newly revised 

PEP, describing the experiences of the first cohort 

 4 An absolute priority must be addressed by applicants 

in order to be considered for a grant; those that fail to 

meet the priority are considered ineligible and not 

considered for funding. 5

 BMI or body mass index is a number calculated from a 

person's weight and height.

6 Eligible CBOs are private or public nonprofit 

organizations of demonstrated effectiveness that are 

representative of a community or significant segments 

of a community and provide educational or related 

services to individuals in the community. 
3 

of PEP grantees during the first year of the new 

PEP, summarizing implementation activities to date, 

and outlining key benefits and challenges that have

been identified. Appendix A includes all supporting 

exhibits.

Methodology and Data Sources

The evaluation of PEP consists of two components: an online survey of grant project directors

administered once in year 1 and a second time in year 3 of the grant cycle (Component I) and a case 

study of a sample of PEP projects (Component II). Together, the two components will provide rich 

information about the grants’ implementation and operation during the early stages of the revised 

program, which will be included in the final report. The final report will address research questions 

related to implementation, partnerships, and data use over the grant cycle based on findings from both 

the Component I surveys and the Component II case study. 

This evaluation brief reports selected results of the data collected as part of the first survey of PEP 

project directors (part of evaluation Component I; i.e., Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant 

Recipients: Year 1, hereafter referred to as the Year 1 Survey) administered August–September 2011. 

The Year 1 Survey focused on the PEP projects’ design and implementation experiences during the first 

year of the grant. (Depending on their individual response dates, grantees provided feedback based on 

their initial 10- to 12-month grant period.) All 76 of the surveyed grantees completed the online survey 

administration, yielding a 100 percent response rate. Study team members conducted analyses across 

all grantees and by grantee type (district or CBO) to identify any systematic differences between the two 

types. Where different response patterns emerged between the district and CBO grantees, the Year 1 

Evaluation Brief includes results by grantee type; otherwise, the brief reports results across all grantees.

Who Are PEP Projects 

Serving?

PEP FY 2010 new projects served almost 

300,000 youths over the course of the first grant 

year. 

As in previous years, the new PEP grantees and 

their community partners were not provided with 

specific directions regarding what population to 

target, other than to focus on students in 

kindergarten through grade 12. Although some 

projects indicated that they targeted specific groups 

of students (e.g., students with physical or learning 

disabilities, students receiving free or reduced-price 

lunches), the majority (70 percent) of the 76 PEP 

projects reported serving their entire applicable 

youth population.

7 CBO projects served 2,005 

 7 Based on the survey item which asked district grantees 

if they served all schools in their school district and CBO 

youths on average, and district projects served 

4,334 youths on average (see Exhibit 1). 

How Do Grantees 

Implement PEP Projects?

Based on their proposed first year budgets, 

district and CBO grantees had similar 

distributions of funds among the various 

budget categories, with both designating more 

than half of grant funds for equipment and 

personnel.

The average PEP grant award for the entire grant 

period was $1,101,757, with awards ranging from 

$189,664 to $2,478,698. Both district and CBO 

grantees designated more than half of their firstyear grant funds for equipment and personnel. 

District grantees allocated the largest proportion of 

 

grantees if they served the entire youth population 

affiliated with their CBO. 
4 

their projects’ budgets for equipment, while CBO 

grantees allocated the largest percentage of their 

funds to personnel (see Exhibit 2). In addition, most 

grantees (92 percent) reported the need to adjust 

their proposed first-year grant budgets. The most 

common reason for necessary budget revisions 

was unexpected savings, followed by 

underestimated and unexpected costs. 

All PEP grantees reported that their projects 

addressed all five of the authorized physical 

fitness activities.

Although the new PEP absolute priority required 

projects to undertake only one of the five authorized 

physical fitness activities, in addition to instruction in 

healthy eating habits and good nutrition, 100 

percent of the PEP grantees reported proposing 

that their projects would address all five. PEP 

projects included a moderate to significant focus on 

all five physical fitness activities authorized in the 

statute8 (i.e., fitness education and assessment; 

instruction in physical activities; development of, 

and instruction in, cognitive concepts about motor 

skills and physical fitness; physical activity 

participation; and professional development for 

teachers of physical education). 

All PEP grantees reported plans to offer 

professional development. 

All district and CBO grantees planned professional 

development activities as part of their PEP projects 

and reported a similar focus on the topics to be 

offered. The three most commonly reported topics 

were curricula development or improvement, 

instructional strategies, and student assessment

(see Exhibit 3). 

 8 ESEA, Title V, Part D, §§ 5501–5507; 20 U.S.C. 7261–

7261f. 

Most (76 percent) of the PEP grantees reported 

implementing the majority of their grant’s 

planned Year 1 activities. 

Of the 58 grantees implementing the majority of 

their Year 1 activities, 9 percent reported the 

implementation of all planned activities. Only three 

grantees reported implementing fewer than half of 

their PEP grant’s proposed first-year activities. 

The Year 1 Survey also requested information 

about whether projects implemented specific types 

of activities that aligned with PEP’s authorized 

physical fitness activities and instruction in healthy 

eating habits and good nutrition. Grantees reported 

implementing the majority of the types of physical 

activities listed in the survey. Over 95 percent of the 

projects implemented activities to improve 

personnel capacity to provide physical education 

instruction, and to improve physical education 

instruction related to physical fitness and specific to 

physical activity (see Exhibit 4). The majority of 

grantees implemented many of the activities related 

to healthy eating habits and good nutrition as well—

the most common focus for these was improving 

instruction on nutrition education (see Exhibit 5). 

What Role Do Partners 

Play in PEP Projects? 

Almost all PEP projects established 

partnerships with a variety of community 

entities. 

The Department’s notice inviting applications for the 

revised PEP promoted the establishment of 

community partnerships as a collaborative 

approach to combating youth obesity. All but one 

grantee established partnerships with community 

entities.9 The 75 PEP projects with partners 

 9 The Year 1 Survey asked grantees about official 

partnerships (i.e., proposed for the competitive 

preference priority), as well as any other “unofficial” 

collaborations (i.e., not proposed for the competitive 

preference priority) that had taken place over the 

course of the first year of the grant. To provide an 
5 

indicated collaborations with a diverse range of 

community entities (e.g., other districts and CBOs, 

public health departments or boards, and public 

park or recreational authorities). On average, 

grantees reported that their partners had a 

moderate level of involvement in project activities. 

However, different response patterns emerged for 

district versus CBO grantees, both in the types of 

partners they most commonly collaborated with and 

in the reported level of involvement with each type 

(see Exhibit 6). 

CBO grantees most commonly partnered with 

districts, and reported that the districts averaged a 

moderate to significant level of involvement with 

project activities. District grantees most commonly 

partnered with their food service or child nutrition 

director, and reported a moderate level of 

involvement by such partners. The few CBO 

grantees that did partner with a district’s food 

service or child nutrition director provided the lowest 

reported degree of involvement for these partners. 

Although district and CBO grantees reported 

different forms of partner relationships, they 

reported similar partnering challenges and benefits. 

The two most common challenges with partnerships

included the diversion of time and resources away 

from other priorities or obligations of their PEP 

grants and difficulties in coordinating meetings and 

activities. The one challenge about which district 

and CBO grantees diverged was related to 

personnel turnover within the collaborating entities; 

personnel turnover was identified as a challenge by 

a larger number of the CBO grantees relative to the 

district grantees (83 percent versus 30 percent). 

Reported benefits of partnerships included the 

contribution of additional personnel, the capability of 

reaching more of the targeted population, and the 

opportunity to allow personnel to focus on their 

specific areas of expertise.

 

overview of PEP projects’ partner-related activities, 

responses were collapsed across official and unofficial 

partnerships; these will be reported separately in the 

final report. 

What Are PEP Projects’ 

Experiences With the New 

GPRA Measures? 

Grantees experienced challenges in collecting 

data for the new GPRA measures. 

Under the revised PEP, the Department requires 

grantees to use uniform data collection methods10

to collect data for three new GPRA measures 

designed to align with the multiple foci of the new 

program: 

Physical activity measure: The percentage of 

students who engage in 60 minutes of daily 

physical activity, with data collected using 

pedometers for students in grades K–12, as well as

the 3-Day Physical Activity Recall (3DPAR)11 for 

students in grades 5–12.12 

Physical fitness measure: The percentage of 

students who achieve age-appropriate

cardiovascular fitness levels, with data collected for 

students in middle and high school using the 20-

meter shuttle run. 

Nutrition measure: The percentage of students 

who consume fruit two or more times per day and 

vegetables three or more times per day, with data 

 10 The Department required uniform data collection 

methods be used for appropriate age groups. Grantees 

serving youths of ages other than those specified were 

able to choose alternate data collection methods; thus, 

the number of grantees using each method varied (see 

Exhibit 7).

11 The 3DPAR is a self-report instrument that asks 

students to recall their physical activity behavior on 

each of the previous three days, beginning with the 

most recent day. 

12 Grantees were required to have youths in grades 5–12 

wear pedometers for seven consecutive days in each 

data-collection window. Youths in grades K–4 were to 

wear pedometers for four consecutive days in each 

data-collection window. To capture activity at and away 

from the project sites, PEP required that the youths 

wear pedometers all day, every day, during the 

collection periods.
6 

collected for high school students using the Youth 

Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS).13 

Of the grantees collecting pedometer and 3DPAR 

data for the new GPRA physical activity measure, 

the majority reported moderate to extreme difficulty 

(Exhibit 7). In addition, CBO grantees reported 

greater difficulty than district grantees in collecting 

the physical fitness and nutrition data, while the 

majority of the district grantees (81 percent) 

reported that these data collections were not at all 

or slightly difficult; most CBO grantees (82 percent) 

reported the YRBS as moderately or extremely 

difficult, and more than half (58 percent) reported 

moderate or extreme difficulty in collecting 20-meter 

shuttle run data. In fact, the most commonly cited

challenge PEP projects faced during the first year

was GPRA data collection (see What Challenges 

Did PEP Grantees Experience During the First Year 

of the PEP Projects? below). 

How Do PEP Projects 

Plan to Use BMI Data? 

All but three PEP projects either collected or 

planned to collect BMI data. 

Grantees provided feedback regarding their 

planned uses of their BMI data collection by 

selecting from a list of potential uses of BMI 

measurements (see Exhibit 8). District grantees 

most frequently (81 percent) reported plans to use 

the BMI data to assess the weight status of the 

youth population across time. CBO grantees’ most 

frequently (91 percent) reported plans to use the 

BMI measures to guide nutrition-related and 

physical activity program development as well as to 

assess outcomes related to PEP grant activities.

 13 Alternate measurement methods from the YRBS were 

permitted for elementary and middle school youth 

participants. 

What Challenges Did PEP 

Grantees Experience 

During the First Year of the 

PEP Projects?

Almost all grantees reported experiencing 

implementation challenges during the first year 

of their PEP projects, with most of those 

grantees implementing changes or strategies to 

address such challenges.

Only two grantees reported no implementation 

challenges in the first year of their PEP projects. 

The remaining 97 percent of the grantees reported 

GPRA data collection, lack of time to prepare for 

the start of the grant following award notification, 

and delays related to arrival of equipment, 

administrative approvals, or hiring as the most 

common challenges (see Exhibit 9). Although 

district and CBO grantees reported the same three 

top challenges, some differences emerged in the 

reporting of less frequent challenges. For example, 

a larger percentage of district grantees reported 

challenges in equipment installation and setup 

compared with the CBO grantees. Conversely, a 

larger percentage of CBO grantees than district 

grantees reported challenges with coordination 

across sites and staff turnover. 

The high percentage of grantees reporting 

challenges with GPRA data collection aligns with 

the reported level of difficulty in collecting GPRA

data. The 62 grantees reporting GPRA data 

collection challenges also indicated the type of 

challenges experienced; the three most common 

challenges included lack of proper reporting or data 

collection by students, loss or theft of equipment, 

and a failure to return requested information14 (see 

Exhibit 10). 

 14 The survey did not delineate from whom the 

information was requested. Thus, failure to return 

requested information may vary by how the grantees 

collect the various GPRA data (e.g., students, parents, 

personnel, or contracted evaluators).
7 

Of the 74 PEP grantees experiencing 

implementation challenges, 84 percent reported 

implementing strategies to address such 

challenges. The most common strategies included 

adjustments to timelines, revisions to data collection 

methods, and the reorganization of personnel or 

staff responsibilities. More importantly, the 

grantees’ strategies aligned with the most reported 

challenges: delays, lack of time to prepare following 

award notification, and issues with GPRA data 

collection.

What Are the Next Steps in 

the Evaluation of PEP?

This brief reported selected first-year results of the 

comprehensive three-year evaluation of the new 

PEP. The final report will address the three main 

study areas of implementation, partnerships, and 

data use, and will include in depth findings, from 

both (I) the first- and third-year surveys, and (II) the 

in-depth case study of a sample of the FY 2010 

new PEP grantees. Final report analyses will 

address the following:

♦ Implementation of program activities

♦ Alignment with and changes to physical activity 

and food- and nutrition-related policies

♦ Partner roles, including perceived benefits and 

challenges

♦ Grantees’ experiences with and uses of 

outcome data collection, including BMI and 

GPRA data

♦ Challenges experienced, strategies used, and 

lessons learned by grantees

♦ Grantee-reported project accomplishments

Acknowledgments 

The members of the study team express our 

appreciation to the FY 2010 new PEP grantees who 

took time out of their busy schedules to speak with 

us. The contributions of these individuals were 

essential for the production of this brief.

References 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2011. 

“Adolescent and School Health: Childhood Obesity 

Facts.” Last modified Sept. 15, 2011: 

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/obesity/facts.htm.

National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and 

Blood Institute. 2010. “Disease and Conditions Index: 

What Are Overweight and Obesity?” Last modified 

Nov. 1, 2010: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/healthtopics/topics/obe/.

U.S. Department of Education Office of Safe and DrugFree 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.

The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the U.S. Department of Education. 

No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education is intended or should be inferred.
8 

Appendix A. Supporting Exhibits

Exhibit 1. Average, median, minimum, and maximum number of youths served by district

and CBO PEP grantees for Year 1 

Type of grantee Average Median Minimum Maximum

District 4,334 2,950 128 38,063

CBO 2,005 1,300 157 10,000

Exhibit reads: District PEP projects served an average of 4,334 youths over the course of the first year of the PEP grants. 

CBO PEP projects served an average of 2,005 youths over the course of the first year of the PEP grants.

Note: The table reports statistics based on the entire population of grantees, 64 district grantees and 12 CBO grantees 

(N = 76).

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant 

Recipients: Year 1, 2011.
9 

Exhibit 2. Average proposed percentage of Year 1 PEP grant funds allocated to specific 

budget categories by district and CBO PEP grantees 

Exhibit reads: District grantees allocated 34 percent of Year 1 PEP grant funds to equipment, whereas CBO grantees 

allocated 20 percent of Year 1 grant funds to equipment. 

Note: The graph reports percentages based on the entire population of grantees, 64 district grantees and 12 CBO grantees 

(N = 76).

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant 

Recipients: Year 1, 2011.

Equipment 

(34%)

Personnel 

(18%)

Supplies 

(18%)

Contractual 

(15%)

Fringe 

benefits 

(5%)

Travel (4%)

Training 

stipends 

(3%)

Indirect 

costs 

(2%)

Other (1%)

District

Equipment 

(20%)

Personnel 

(41%)

Supplies 

(14%)

Contractual 

(13%)

Fringe 

benefits 

(7%)

Travel (2%)

Training 

stipends 

(0%)

Indirect 

costs (2%)

Other (1%)

CBO
10

Exhibit 3. Percentage of projects with plans to offer specific professional development 

topics

Exhibit reads: Ninety-six percent of PEP grantees reported plans to offer professional development on curricula development 

or improvement.

Note: The graph reports percentages based on 64 district grantees and 12 CBO grantees (n = 76).

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant 

Recipients: Year 1, 2011.

Exhibit 4. Percentage of PEP grantees implementing physical activities by type of activity

Physical activity Percent of grantees

Improve personnel/staff capacity to provide physical education instruction 99

Improve physical education instruction related to physical fitness 97

Improve physical education instruction specific to physical activity 96

Improve an existing physical education program 93

Improve physical education instruction related to cognitive concepts 91

Improve student engagement in physical activities external to school-based curricula 89

Promote social and cooperative skills in physical fitness 84

Develop or redesign physical education policies 84

Increase family involvement in student physical fitness 79

Create a new physical education program 75

Other 11

Exhibit reads: Ninety-nine percent of grantees reported implementing activities related to improving personnel or staff 

capacity to provide physical education instruction. 

Note: Rank ordered from the largest to smallest percentage of grantees reporting the activity. The table reports percentages 

based on the entire population of grantees, 64 district grantees and 12 CBO grantees (N = 76).

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant 

Recipients: Year 1, 2011.

96% 96% 93% 87% 80% 72% 63%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Curricula

development

or

improvement

Instructional

strategies

Student

assessment

Technology

or equipment

related

Research in

physical

education

Research in

good nutrition

Pedagogy

training

Percentage of grantees

Professional development topic
11

Exhibit 5. Percentage of PEP grantees implementing healthy eating habits and good 

nutrition activities by type of activity 

Healthy eating habits and good nutrition activity Percent of grantees

Improve instruction on nutrition education 91

Integrate nutrition education and nutritional themes into subject areas 84

Revise/expand existing curricula for nutrition education 84

Promote nutrition awareness to parents and communities 83

Involve parents and the community in supporting nutrition education 80

Integrate school food service and nutrition education 80

Provide nutrition education preservice and ongoing in-service training to teachers and staff 75

Develop new curricula for nutrition education 72

Facilitate coordination between food service and classroom instruction 71

Encourage healthy eating habits in after-school programs 70

Establish a districtwide nutrition education committee 53

Provide training for school staff to identify unhealthy eating behaviors in students and make 

referrals to appropriate services 47

Other 4 

Exhibit reads: Ninety-one percent of grantees reported implementing activities related to improving instruction on nutrition 

education.

Note: Rank ordered from the largest to smallest percentage of grantees reporting the activity. The table reports percentages 

based on the entire population of grantees, 64 district grantees and 12 CBO grantees (N = 76).

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant 

Recipients: Year 1, 2011.
12

Exhibit 6. Number of PEP grantees in partnerships and average reported degree of partner 

involvement by type of community entity for district and CBO PEP grantees 

Exhibit reads: Of the 75 grantees in partnerships, 8 CBO and 27 district grantees partnered with CBOs. CBO partners 

received an average degree-of-involvement rating of 2.0 from the 8 CBO grantees and 2.9 from the 27 district grantees. 

*Indicates categories of community entities listed only in the CBO survey. 

**Based on the average of the average reported degree of involvement across all types of community entities. The 

calculation of the average was not weighted for number of grantees in partnerships so as not to apply relative importance of 

a given type of community entity’s level of involvement based only on the number of established partnerships. 

Note: The exhibit reports the average degree of involvement for the number of district and CBO grantees selecting each 

type of community entity of the 64 district grantees and 11 CBO grantees in partnerships (n = 75).

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant 

Recipients: Year 1, 2011.

2.7

2.4 (n=33)

2.7 (n=41)

2.3 (n=41)

3.0 (n=47)

2.8 (n=11)

2.6 (n=34)

3.3 (n=30)

2.7 (n=33)

2.9 (n=27)

2.8

3.2 (n=8)

3.1 (n=4)

2.3 (n=3)

2.8 (n=4)

3.5 (n=7)

1.9 (n=4)

3.3 (n=9)

3.0 (n=7)

3.2 (n=6)

2.2 (n=6)

2.0 (n=8)

1 2 3 4

Average across community entities**

Head of the local government where

CBO is located*

Other local public health entity*

Other government department

Public park or recreational authority

Public health department/board

District's food service/child nutrition

director

District

Hospital or clinic

External evaluation/monitoring

agency

College or university

CBO

Degree of involvement

CBO District

Not involved at all Significant involvement

Type of community entity
13

Exhibit 7. Of the PEP grantees that implemented each uniform GPRA data collection 

method, the percentage of district and CBO PEP grantees reporting degree of 

difficulty in collecting the GPRA measures by data collection method

Exhibit reads: Of the 63 district grantees collecting pedometer data, 21 percent reported slight or no difficulty at all, whereas 

79 percent reported moderate or extreme difficulty with pedometer data collection.

Note: The exhibit reports percentages based on the number of district grantees and the number of CBO grantees 

implementing each type of GPRA measure data collection method. Percentages may not total 100 because of rounding. 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant 

Recipients: Year 1, 2011.

 

21

46

36 36

81

42

69

18

79

55

64 64

19

58

31

82

0

20

40

60

80

100

District

(n=63)

CBO

(n=11)

District

(n=59)

CBO

(n=11)

District

(n=63)

CBO

(n=12)

District

(n=55)

CBO

(n=11)

Physical activity:

Pedometer

Physical activity:

3DPAR

Physical fitness:

20-meter shuttle run

Nutrition:

YRBS

Percent

GPRA measure data collection method

Not at all or slightly difficult Moderate or extremely difficult
14

Exhibit 8. Of the PEP grantees that collected or planned to collect BMI data, the percentage

of district and CBO PEP grantees reporting specific uses of BMI measurements 

Use of BMI measurements Percent of district 

grantees (n = 62)

Percent of CBO 

grantees (n = 11)

To guide nutrition-related program development 79 91 

To guide physical activity program development 76 91 

To assess outcomes related to PEP grant activities 73 91 

To assess the weight status of the youths population across time 81 64 

To provide parents with information about their children's BMI to help them 

take appropriate action 68 64 

To assess the weight status of individual youth to identify those at risk for 

weight-related health problems 57 73 

To calculate percentage of youths of different weight statuses among the 

population 65 55 

To provide the data to school administrator(s)/board(s) to inform policy change 73 36 

To compare the population trends at different sites/schools 55 36 

Exhibit reads: Of the 62 district and 11 CBO grantees that collected or planned to collect BMI data, 79 percent of district 

grantees and 91 percent of CBO grantees planned to use BMI data to guide nutrition-related program development.

Note: Rank ordered from the largest to smallest average of the percentage of the district and CBO grantees reporting use of 

BMI measurements. The table reports percentages based on 62 district grantees and 11 CBO grantees (n = 73).

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant 

Recipients: Year 1, 2011.

Exhibit 9. Of the PEP grantees reporting Year 1 implementation challenges, the percentage 

of district and CBO PEP grantees reporting specific types of challenges

Challenge Percent of district 

grantees (n = 62)

Percent of CBO 

grantees (n = 12)

GPRA data collection 84 83 

Lack of time to prepare following award notification 86 75 

Delays 71 67 

Competing academic priorities or pressures 40 50 

Coordination across sites 26 42 

Equipment installation and/or setup 42 25 

Staff turnover 15 42 

Training 21 33 

Lack of facilities 16 25 

Other (e.g., attendance, resistance to change) 8 25 

Partnerships/collaborations 11 17 

Budget 18 8 

Federal grant monitors or administrative obstacles 8 8 

Exhibit reads: Of the 62 district and 12 CBO grantees that reported implementation challenges, 84 percent of district 

grantees and 83 percent of CBO grantees reported challenges in implementing GPRA data collection.

Note: Rank ordered from the largest to smallest average of the percentage of the district and CBO grantees reporting 

challenges. The table reports percentages based on 62 district grantees and 12 CBO grantees (n = 74). 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant 

Recipients: Year 1, 2011.
15

 

Exhibit 10. Of the PEP grantees reporting challenges with GPRA data collection, the 

percentage of district and CBO PEP grantees reporting specific types of 

challenges

GPRA Challenge Percent of district 

grantees (n = 52)

Percent of CBO 

grantees (n = 10)

Lack of proper data collection/reporting by students 77 80 

Loss or theft of equipment 64 80 

Failure to return requested information 73 70 

Lack of preparation time 58 50 

Malfunctioning/faulty equipment 48 50 

Coordinating data collection across sites 52 30 

Lack of personnel/staff 25 50 

Lack of proper data collection/reporting by personnel/staff 21 20 

Other (e.g., lack of time for data collection) 21 20 

Problems with sampling 10 0 

Requirements not clear 8 0 

Exhibit reads: Of the 52 district and 10 CBO grantees that reported challenges with GPRA data collection, 77 percent of 

district grantees and 80 percent of CBO grantees reported lack of proper data collection or reporting by students.

Note: Rank ordered from the largest to smallest average of the percentage of the district and CBO grantees reporting 

challenges. The table reports percentages based on 52 district grantees and 10 CBO grantees (n = 62). 

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Policy and Program Studies Service, Survey of 2010 PEP District and CBO Grant 

Recipients: Year 1, 2011.