SUPPORTING STATEMENT

FOR PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION

A. Justification

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary. 

Identify any legal or administrative requirements that necessitate the collection. Attach 

a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or 

authorizing the collection of information.

The purpose of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) program, as 

authorized under Title IV, Part B, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 

§§4201 et seq., (20 U.S. Code §§7171 et seq., attached to submission package), is to 

provide expanded academic enrichment opportunities for children attending lowperforming schools. Tutorial services and academic enrichment activities are designed to 

help students meet local and state academic standards in subjects such as reading and 

math. In addition, 21st CCLC programs provide youth development activities, drug and 

violence prevention programs, technology education programs, art, music and recreation 

programs, counseling, and character education to enhance the academic component of the 

program. In support of this program, Congress appropriated nearly $1.1 billion for 21st

CCLC programs for fiscal year 2013. Consisting of public and nonprofit agencies, 

community- and faith-based organizations, local businesses, postsecondary institutions, 

scientific/cultural and other community entities, 4,077 sub-grantees—operating 9,989 

centers—provided academic and enrichment services and activities to over 1.7 million 

children.

The Department of Education (ED) is requesting authorization to continue the collection 

of data through four Web-based, data-collection modules, the Annual Performance 

Report, the Grantee Profile, the Competition Overview, and the State Activities module 

(the form of each module is attached to the submission package), which collectively will 

be housed in a web-based data collection application. The data will continue to be used to 

fulfill ED’s requirement under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) to 

report to Congress annually on the implementation and progress of 21st CCLC projects 

and the use of state administrative and technical assistance funds allocated to the states to 

support the program. The data collection will also provide SEA liaisons with needed 

descriptive data about their grantees and allow SEA liaisons to conduct performance 

monitoring and identify areas of needed technical assistance. The data ED requires is the 

same as that collected under approved OMB-No. 1810-0668. Again, the information ED 

seeks to collect reflects the changes in the program’s authorization, accountability, and 

structure under NCLB. ED has worked in consultation with a group of SEA 

administrators, each of whom is overseeing his or her state’s implementation of the 21st 

CCLC program to determine what their program monitoring information needs are and to 

ensure that the data required will not be onerous to grantees or to states. 
The data ED will be collecting falls into two categories:

Data Collected From States

The web-based system contains two sections/modules that seek information directly from 

SEAs on the administration of the 21st CCLC program. The first, the Competition 

Overview, will collect basic descriptive data about each state’s 21st CCLC competition, 

including the number of applicants by applicant type, number of awards, total dollar 

amounts awarded, performance indicators for applicants, and any mandatory or 

competitive priorities utilized in the competition. ED needs this information to be able to 

be fully responsive to congressional and administrative inquiries about the use of the 

dollars appropriated to states and to ensure that states are aligning their programs to the 

legislative requirements that delineate the appropriate use of 21st CCLC funds. The 

completion of the Competition Overview will also trigger the addition of new grantees to 

the database, so that grantee and competition records remain current at all times.

In addition, around the time of the collection of the Annual Performance Report data, 

SEAs will also report their annual State Activities information. Under the authorizing 

legislation of the 21st CCLC program, states are able to use up to 2 percent of their fiscalyear allocation for state administration and oversight of the program and an additional 3 

percent of their fiscal-year allocation for training, technical assistance to grantees, and 

evaluation of the program. The State Activities module seeks to obtain summary

information from each state on the type and extent of the use of those discretionary funds. 

Obtaining this information will provide an avenue for oversight and monitoring of the 

federal funds expended for these purposes. Collection of this data will also help ED 

respond to legislative and other administrative inquiries. 

Data Collected From Grantees

The reporting forms are organized around the central goals taken from the program’s 

authorizing legislation:

Goals 

Each eligible organization that receives an award may use the funds to carry out a broad 

array of before- and after-school activities (or activities during other times when school is 

not in session) that advance student achievement. Based on the authorizing legislation, 

local grantees are limited to providing activities within the following list: 

1. Remedial education activities and academic enrichment learning programs, 

including providing additional assistance to students to allow the students to 

improve their academic achievement.

2. Mathematics and science education activities.

3. Arts and music education activities.

4. Entrepreneurial education programs.
5. Tutoring services (including those provided by senior citizen volunteers) and 

mentoring programs.

6. Programs that provide after-school activities for limited-English-proficient 

students that emphasize language skills and academic achievement. 

7. Recreational activities.

8. Telecommunications and technology education programs.

9. Expanded library service hours.

10. Programs that promote parental involvement and family literacy.

11. Programs that provide assistance to students who have been truant, suspended, or 

expelled, to allow the students to improve their academic achievement.

12. Drug and violence prevention programs, counseling programs, and character 

education programs.

The 21st CCLC program uses multiple objectives and performance indicators to measure 

the progress of 21st CCLC grantees, as described below:

GOAL: To enable elementary and secondary schools to plan, implement, or expand 

extended learning opportunities for the benefit of the educational, health, social service, 

cultural, and recreational needs of their communities.

Objective 1 – Participants in 21st Century Community Learning Centers programs 

will demonstrate educational and social benefits and exhibit positive behavioral 

changes.

Achievement. Increasing percentages of students regularly participating in the program 

will meet or exceed state and local academic achievement standards in reading and 

mathematics.

Behavior. Students participating in the program will show improvements on measures 

such as school attendance, classroom performance, and decreased disciplinary actions or 

other adverse behaviors.

Objective 2 – 21st Century Community Learning Centers will offer a range of highquality educational, developmental, and recreational services.

2.1 Core educational services. More than 85 percent of centers will offer high-quality 

services in core academic areas, for example, reading and literacy, mathematics, and 

science.

2.2 Enrichment and support activities. More than 85 percent of centers will offer 

enrichment and support activities such as nutrition and health, art, music, technology, and 

recreation.

Based on the goals and objectives of the 21st CCLC program, ED is seeking a renewal of 

approval to collect information to ensure compliance and gauge program impact. ED 
seeks to collect descriptive information about program operation from each grantee, 

including grant-level information on program objectives and community partner and 

subcontractors’ activity, contribution, and status during the year. Also, ED seeks to 

collect center-level information on the characteristics of a given center (hours, weeks, 

number of days open per week, staffing, activities by category and subject area, and 

intensity of service provision and participation); characteristics of feeder schools to the 

centers (the change in legislation now permits activities to occur at locations other than 

schools); center participation—including total numbers served and numbers of regular 

attendees (30 days or more); and aggregated student characteristics (racial, ethnic, gender 

makeup; special services or program and grade levels served). This information will be 

collected primarily through the one-time completion of the Grantee Profile module, but 

the fidelity of implementation will be assessed through reporting on the Annual 

Performance Report. 

In the areas of student achievement and behavioral change, proposed data-collection 

efforts are to result in at least one of the following pieces of information being collected 

from grantees: 

1. Changes in student grades for regular attendees in reading/English/language arts 

and math based on a fall-to-spring comparison. 

2. The number of regular attendees falling within a given proficiency category on 

the state assessment test(s) administered during the reporting period for both 

reading/English/language arts and math.

3. The number of regular attendees whose test scores on the state assessment tests 

administered during the previous and current year in reading/English/language 

arts and math increased, decreased, or stayed the same. 

4. Changes in student behavior as documented via teacher surveys.

Given that each state has created its own accountability structures for the 21st CCLC 

program, however, ED is requiring that grantees report on only one of the four listed 

student achievement and behavioral change areas listed. 

The data collection is necessary to allow ED to collect information from states that are 

now directly administering the program and from the grantees to which the states have 

awarded the grants. An overview table of the information sought by each module and the 

entity responsible for submission is included in the package. The data collection system is 

currently undergoing a redesign; however, the information to be collected will remain the 

same. This overview table represents the data that will continue to be collected. 

OMB Reporting History and Legislative Authority

Clearance was granted for a revised information collection by the States under OMB No. 

1810-0668 through November 30, 2007. The web-based data collection will be primarily 

completed by grantee directors or center coordinators of 21st CCLC programs. The 

reporting forms are organized around four central goals taken from the program’s 

authorizing legislation.
The legislative authority for ED to collect the data contained within the Annual 

Performance Report comes from two places:

 The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). 

 The Education Department’s General Administrative Regulation (EDGAR).

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 mandates that all federal agencies 

report program progress to the President and Congress annually, which includes annual 

performance plans (Section 1115 (a)) and reports (Section 1116 (a)). Performance plans 

must establish performance goals to define the level of performance to be achieved by a 

program activity (Section 1115 (a) (1)); express such goals in an objective, quantifiable, 

and measurable form (Section 1115 (a) (2)); establish performance indicators to be used 

in measuring or assessing the relevant outputs, service levels, and outcomes of each

program activity (Section 1115 (a) (4)); and provide a basis for comparing actual 

program results with the established performance goals (Section 1115 (a) (5)). Program 

performance reports shall set forth the performance indicators established in the agency

performance plan, along with the actual performance achieved compared with the 

performance goals expressed in the plan for that fiscal year (Section 1116 (b) (1)). 

Current indicators of program performance include improvement in student academic 

achievement; provision of services to high-need schools; extended program hours; and 

positive student outcomes and behavior (e.g., improved grades, program and school-day

attendance, and disciplinary actions).

Under the Education Department’s General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR, 

Section 75.720 and 80.40), grantees shall submit annual performance reports. 

2. Indicate how, by whom, and for what purpose the information is to be used. 

Except for a new collection, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the 

information received from the current collection.

The purpose of the information collected is to provide (1) a standard format for SEAs and 

their grantees to use in their annual reporting, which program officers will use to direct 

technical assistance, and (2) data to report to Congress on program indicators and ED 

goals. 

The audiences for these data include:

 ED program staff, to obtain descriptive information about the use of the 21st 

CCLC funds and better provide support to states and provide national leadership 

to states and their grantees.

 SEAs, to provide descriptive information for monitoring and to target technical 

assistance to individual sites and to the grantees as a group.

 Congress, to monitor program progress. 
 Grantees, to encourage program improvement and to share with their 

communities.

 Policymakers and researchers.

The reauthorization of the program as part of NCLB changed the administrative structure 

of the program and more directly focused the activities and goals of the program’s 

services. ED requires a consistent format to report on the implementation of the program 

to Congress. This can most readily be done through the Competition Overview, Grantee 

Profile, and Annual Performance Report modules. ED also uses the Annual Performance 

Report as a consistent way of evaluating the level of program implementation and the use 

of funds by grantees, assessing progress toward ED goals and GRPA indicators, and 

understanding states’ and grantees’ needs for technical assistance. 

3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the 

use of automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques 

or forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses, and the basis for the decision of adopting this means of collection. Also 

describe any consideration of using information technology to reduce burden.

Once data is entered initially, Grantees access and submit information to the modules 

electronically, through a Web-based reporting system. The current submission requires 

one annual data submission with flexible opportunities to provide updates at any time 

through the Grantee Profile module. Additionally, the technology applied reduces the 

amount of narrative supplied in responses and provides greater opportunity to standardize 

responses through the use of drop down menus and check box responses. The change 

from federal to state administration of the 21st CCLC program creates an interim level of 

review required from each states’ liaison which did not exist in the previously authorized 

statute and creates the overall increase in hours. Still, for ED and SEAs administering the 

program, the use of technology affords greater access and use of data by (1) accessing 

completed Annual Performance Reports more quickly; (2) more efficiently aggregating 

and analyzing grantee responses to specific questions; and (3) more easily storing and 

managing the hundreds of Annual Performance Reports received each year from 

grantees. Electronic collection affords greater efficiency for grantees by (1) eliminating 

the need to print and mail an original and two copies of the Annual Performance Report; 

(2) providing SEAs and grantees a system whereby initial data input on the Competition 

Overview and Grantee Profile automates additional reporting on enabling them to receive 

real-time technical assistance from ED and SEA staff, who can view their responses 

online; and (3) ensuring that all Annual Performance Report questions are completed 

fully and correctly. Grantees who do not have access to online technology are permitted 

to e-mail, fax, or mail the Annual Performance Report.

4. Describe efforts to identify duplication. Show specifically why any similar 

information already available cannot be used or modified for use of the purposes 

described in Item 2 above.
The data to be collected in these instruments are not available from any other source on a 

national basis. The Department of Education is required by the Government Performance 

and Results Act of 1993 to produce an annual performance report to Congress on the 

status of all 21st CCLC program grantees. No other agency collects the information 

requested in a standard and uniform manner. Although in the past there have been 

several studies conducted on after-school programs, none have included a yearly report 

from all 21st CCLC program grantees. In addition, individual states may be collecting 

data from their grantees, but the data is not collected in a uniform fashion to report on the 

progress of the program on a national basis and in accordance with the authorizing 

legislation. Every effort has been made to ensure that states who are already collecting 

data are able to submit data in the form they have chosen, including working with every

state that has identified an alternative means of collecting data through its own 

development of a collection system or through a subcontract to a vendor. 

5. If the collection of information impacts small businesses or other small entities 

(Item 5 of OMB Form 83-1), describe any methods used to minimize burden.

Not applicable to this report.

6. Describe the consequences to Federal program or policy activities if the 

collection is not conducted or is conducted less frequently, as well as any technical or 

legal obstacles to reducing burden.

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 mandates that all federal agencies 

and programs submit an annual program performance report to Congress detailing 

performance during the past fiscal year. Now that the states directly administer the 

program and the day-to-day implementation by grantees, ED’s performance indicator 

reporting requirements and ED program officer decisions regarding state and grantee 

performance and national activities administration require annual data collection. 

7. Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collection 

to be conducted in a manner: requiring respondents to report information to the 

agency more often than quarterly; requiring respondents to prepare a written response 

to a collection of information in fewer than 30 days after receipt of it; requiring 

respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any document;

requiring respondents to retain records, other than health, medical, government 

contract, grant-in-aid, or tax records of more than three years; in connection with a 

statistical survey, that is not designed to produce valid and reliable results that can be 

generalized to the universe of study; requiring the use of a statistical data classification 

that has not been reviewed and approved by OMB; that includes a pledge of 

confidentiality that is not supported by authority established in statute or regulation, 

that is not supported by disclosure and data security policies that are consistent with 

the pledge, or which unnecessarily impedes sharing of data with other agencies for 

compatible confidential use; or requiring respondents to submit proprietary trade 

secrets, or other confidential information unless the agency can demonstrate that it has 
instituted procedures to protect the information’s confidentiality to the extent permitted 

by law.

No special circumstances apply.

8. If applicable, provide a copy and identify the date and page number of 

publication in the Federal Register of the agency’s notice, required by 5 CFR 

1320.8(d), soliciting comments on the information collection prior to submission to 

OMB. Summarize public comments received in response to that notice and describe 

actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address 

comments received on cost and hour burden. Describe efforts to consult with persons 

outside the agency to obtain their views on the availability of data, frequency of 

collection, the clarity of instruction and record keeping, disclosure, or reporting format 

(if any), and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported.

Consultation with representatives of those from whom information is to be obtained or 

those who must compile records should occur at least once every three years – even if 

the collection of information activity is the same as in prior periods. There may be 

circumstances that may preclude consultation in a specific situation. These 

circumstances should be explained.

A 60-and 30-day Federal Register notice was published in December 2014 and February

2015. ED received public comments during the 60-day FRN that did not cause revision to 

the information collection request. 

9. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than 

remuneration of contractors or grantees.

No payment or gift of any kind will be provided to respondents. 

10. Describe any assurances of confidentiality provided to respondents and the 

basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.

The Department will not receive any personally identifying information. The only 

information ED should receive will be aggregated at the program level. 

11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as 

sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly 

considered private. The justification should include the reasons why the agency 

considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the 

explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any 

steps to be taken to obtain their consent.

None of the questions in the Annual Performance Report concern topics commonly

considered private or sensitive, such as religious beliefs or sexual practices.
12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information. The 

statement should:

Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden, and 

an explanation of how the burden was estimated. Unless directed to do so, agencies 

should not conduct special surveys to obtain information on which to base hour burden 

estimates. Consultation with a sample (fewer than 10) of potential respondents is 

desirable. If the hour burden on respondents is expected to vary widely because of 

differences in activity, size, or complexity, show the range of estimated hour burden, 

and explain the reasons for the variance. Generally, estimates should not include 

burden hours for customary and usual business practices.

If this request for approval covers more than one form, provide separate hour burden 

estimates for each form and aggregate the hour burdens in Item 13 of OMB Form 83-

1. Provide estimates of annualized cost to respondents of the hour burdens for 

collections of information, identifying and using appropriate wage rate categories. The 

cost of contracting out or paying outside parties for information collection activities 

should not be included here. Instead, this cost should be included in Item 14. 

2015

In October 2015, grantees will be required to submit Annual Performance Report 

information in a Web-based format. The average respondent burden for the Annual 

Performance Report is estimated to be 24 hours per sub-grantee. The estimate includes 

reading instructions; collecting all information not included in the sub-grantee’s own 

evaluation efforts; making appropriate calculations; completing the Grantee Profile, if 

not already done in some other format; making appropriate calculations; ensuring 

unduplicated counts of participants; answering all questions fully; and completing and 

submitting the online forms to the state. The estimate also includes completing the

Teacher Survey information, since it is an optional part of the Annual Performance 

Report and is not a separate form. We estimate that sub-grantee staff will earn, on 

average, $20 per hour. The total burden is estimated as follows:

4,077 sub-grantees x 24 hours per sub-grantee = 97,848 hours per year

x 1 year

Total Sub-grantee Hours for 2015 = 97,848 hours

x $20 per hour

Total Sub-grantee Cost for 2015 = $1,956,960.00

This estimate can vary depending on the amount of information states require of their 

sub-grantees. Each state has discretion to require all of the achievement-level data, but 

for purposes of this request, we are only requiring one element in the achievement data 

capture list be reported.

In most states, the directors of each sub-grantee will complete the annual reporting forms 

and return the completed forms to the state. These tasks are expected to take an average 

of four hours. Administrative staff is expected to collect all other information, make 
necessary calculations, and ensure an unduplicated count of participants. These tasks are 

expected to take an average of four hours. We estimate that sub-grant directors and 

administrative staff will earn, on average, $25 per hour. Using these estimates, the total 

burden is estimated as follows:

4,077 sub-grantees x 8 hours of director/admin 

per sub-grantee = 32,616 hours per year

x 1 year

Total Sub-grantee Director/Admin Hours for 

2015 = 32,616 hours

x $25 per hour

Total Sub-grantee Director/Admin Cost for 

2015 = $815,400.00

Each SEA liaison will also be required to supply information about their state programs 

through the Competition Overview and State Activities modules. Once the Competition 

Overview is complete, each SEA will need to initiate a record for each grantee and 

provide basic descriptive information. The SEA liaison will then decide whether to allow 

the grantee to complete the Grantee Profile and Annual Performance Report information. 

Based on input from a representative group, the SEA liaisons have requested the ability

to review and monitor the submissions made by their states’ grantees prior to final 

submission to ED. We estimate that it will take one hour to complete the Overview and 

State Activities information, and an additional two hours to initiate a record for each subgrantee. Once the records are complete, we estimate that it will take an average of 

fourteen hours to review the information submitted by their sub-grantees, for a total of 17 

hours. We estimate that SEA staff will earn, on average, $35 per hour. Using these 

estimates, the total burden is estimated as follows:

54 SEA Staff x 17 hours per SEA = 918 hours per year

x 1 year

Total SEA Staff Hours for 2015 = 918 hours

x $35 per hour

Total SEA Staff Cost for 2015 = $32,130.00

The current number of grantees in each state is variable based on many factors. 

However, the above estimates can be averaged across all states to provide the total 

burden per state, per year as follows:

Total Sub-grantee Hours for 2015 = 97,848 hours

Total Sub-grantee Director/Admin Hours for 2015 = 32,616 hours

Total SEA Staff Hours for 2015 = 918 hours

Total Hours for 2015 = 131,382 hours

/ 54 states

Total Hours per State for 2015 = 2,433
Most programs already operate using computers and Internet access for administration, 

operation, and communication. If a grantee does not operate using a computer, print 

copies of the data-collection elements are acceptable. The costs associated with paper 

submission of this information collection are as follows:

Photocopying instructions, information pages, two

Copies of all information submitted

(200 pages @ $.10 per page) = $20 per year

Time to complete information in print format

Grant Directors (24 hours @ $25 per hour) = $600 per year

Administrative Staff (36 hours @ $25 per hour) = $900 per year

Average Cost per Sub-grantee = $1,520 per year

13. Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to respondents or record 

keepers resulting from the collection of information. (Do not include the cost of any 

hour burden shown in Items 12 and 14.) The cost estimate should be split into two 

components: (a) a total capital and start-up cost component (annualized over its 

expected useful life); and (b) a total operation and maintenance and purchase of 

services component. The estimates should take into account costs associated with 

generating, maintaining, and disclosing or providing the information. Include 

descriptions of methods used to estimate major cost factors including system and 

technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, the discount rate(s), 

and the time period over which costs will be incurred. Capital and start-up costs 

include, among other items, preparations for collecting information such as 

purchasing computers and software; monitoring, sampling, drilling, and testing 

equipment; and record storage facilities. If cost estimates are expected to vary widely, 

agencies should present ranges of cost burdens and explain the reasons for the 

variance. The cost of contracting out information collection services should be a part 

of this cost burden estimate. In developing cost burden estimates, agencies may 

consult with a sample of respondents (fewer than 10), utilize the 60-day pre-OMB 

submission public comment process, and use existing economic or regulatory impact 

analysis associated with the rulemaking containing the information collection, as 

appropriate. Generally, estimates should not include purchases of equipment or 

Total Sub-grantee Cost for 2015 = $1,956,960.00

Total Sub-grantee Director/Admin Cost for 2015 = $815,400.00

Total SEA Staff Cost for 2015 = $32,130.00

Total Cost for 2015 = $2,804,490.00

/ 54 states

Total Cost per State for 2015 = $51,935.00
services, or portions thereof, made: (1) prior to October 1, 1995, (2) to achieve 

regulatory compliance with requirements not associated with the information 

collection, (3) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the 

government, or (4) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.

There are no start-up costs or annual operational costs associated with this application. 

14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Also, provide a 

description of the method used to estimate cost, which should include quantification of 

hours, operational expenses (such as equipment, overhead, printing, and support staff), 

and any other expenses that would not have been incurred without this collection of 

information. Agencies also may aggregate cost estimates from Items 12, 13, and 14 in 

a single table.

Additional cost estimates for technical assistance and report review are as follows:

Tasks for 2015:

Review Reports: 

54 state reports @ 1 per 8 hours = 432 hours

7 staff @ $35/hour = $245/hour

Total = $105,840

Total for 2015 = $105,840

15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in Items 

14 or 15 of the Information Collection Submission Worksheet.

Corrections have been made to account for an error in the last submission. Specifically, 

the annual cost burden for the previous clearance was in error and did not correspond 

with the supporting statement. Furthermore, this extension estimates averaged cost 

burden per state instead of states and separately their sub-grantees. There is an adjustment 

decrease of -1346, and a program change decrease of -33967, correcting previous 

clearance burden; this extension estimates averaged cost burden per state instead of states 

and separately their sub-grantees.

16. For collections of information whose results will be published, outline plans for 

tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be 

used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending 

dates of the collection of information, completion of the report, publication dates, and 

other actions.

The results of this data collection may be used in several ways. The Department of 

Education will prepare an annual program performance report to be submitted to 

Congress. Additionally, aggregated data at the national level may be shared with the 21st

CCLC grantees and with other interested parties outside of Congress. Portions of these 

data may be used in national leadership efforts, such as the implementation study of the 
21st CCLC program and the National Partnership for Quality Afterschool Learning. 

Finally, at the state level, each state may use its own data for performance and 

compliance monitoring, as well as to provide specific information about their state’s 

grantees. 

17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the 

information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

The expiration date for OMB approval will be displayed.

18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in Item 20, 

“Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions,” of OMB Form 83-I.

There are no exceptions to the certification statement.