Source: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/86487418/g-sss
Timestamp: 2014-09-21 02:34:49
Document Index: 428114522

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 10', 'art 14', 'art 14', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 3', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 10', 'art 14', 'art 14', 'art 2', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 10', 'art 14', 'art 14', 'art 2']

Appropriations Language ........................................................................................................ G-1
Amounts Available for Obligation ............................................................................................ G-2
Obligations by Object Classification ........................................................................................ G-4
Summary of Changes ............................................................................................................. G-5
Authorizing Legislation ............................................................................................................ G-7
Appropriations History ............................................................................................................. G-9
Significant Items in FY 2011 Appropriations Reports............................................................. G-10
Summary of request .............................................................................................................. G-11
Promise neighborhoods ..................................................................................................... G-14
Successful, safe, and healthy students .............................................................................. G-19
Safe and drug-free schools and communities national activities ......................................... G-26
Elementary and secondary school counseling.................................................................... G-42
Physical education program ............................................................................................... G-46
Foundations for learning..................................................................................................... G-51
Mental health integration in schools ................................................................................... G-54
Alcohol abuse reduction ..................................................................................................... G-57
21st Century community learning centers ........................................................................... G-61
State table............................................................................................................................. G-70
State Table ........................................................................................................................... G-68
A regular 2011 appropriation for this account had not been enacted at the time the budget was prepared; therefore,
this account is operating under a continuing resolution (P.L. 111-322, Dec. 22, 2010; 124 Stat 3518) that provides
funding through March 4, 2011. No new language is included for this account. All programs are authorized under the
expired Elementary and Secondary Education Act; when new authorizing legislation for the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act is enacted, a budget request for these programs will be proposed.
2010     2011 CR         2012
Annual appropriation......................................     $393,053           0    $1,781,132
Annualized CR (PL 111-322) .........................                  0    $393,053             0
Subtotal, appropriation ...................................     393,053     393,053     1,781,132
Comparative transfer to
Education Improvement Programs for:
Civic education: We the People...................                 -21,617     -21,617           0
Civic education: cooperative education
exchange ..................................................     -13,383     -13,383           0
Comparative transfer from
Innovation and Instructional Teams for:
Promise neighborhoods ...............................            10,000      10,000            0
Foundations for learning...............................           1,000       1,000            0
Mental health integration in schools .............                5,913       5,913            0
21st Century community learning centers .....                   1,166,166   1,166,166           0
Subtotal, comparable appropriation........              1,541,132   1,541,132    1,781,132
Unobligated balance, start of year ......................           10,016       6,225            0
Recovery of prior-year obligations ......................           11,837           0            0
Unobligated balance, expiring ............................               -3          0            0
Unobligated balance, end of year .......................             -6,225          0            0
Comparative transfers:
Unobligated balance, start of year from:
Education Improvement Programs for
21st century community learning centers ....                    14,461      14,890       14,890
2010        2011 CR                 2012
Unobligated balance, end of year from:
21st century community learning centers ...                 -$14,890       -$14,890                       0
Total, direct obligations ...........................   1,556,328      1,547,357        $1,796,022
NOTE: The Administration is proposing to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. FY 2012
funds for affected programs are proposed for later transmittal and will be requested once the legislation is
2010     2011 CR               2012
Printing and reproduction ..................................               $8         $11                $16
Advisory and assistance services ...................                   1,554       2,220              3,067
Peer review .....................................................      1,540       1,455              3,961
Other services ................................................       16,483      24,066             31,605
Purchases of goods and services from
other government accounts .........................                  2,803       3,969              9,651
Subtotal............................................        22,380      31,690             48,284
Grants, subsidies, and contributions .................               1,533,940   1,515,656        1,747,722
Total, obligations .......................................    1,556,328   1,547,357        1,796,022
2011 CR ................................................................................... $1,541,132
2012 .......................................................................................... 1,781,132
Net change .................................................. +240,000
2011 CR base                    from base
Increase for Promise Neighborhoods to provide
competitive grants to community-based organizations for
the development of comprehensive neighborhood
programs designed to combat the effects of poverty and
improve educational and life outcomes for children and
youth, from birth through college and to career.                                               $10,000            +$140,000
Increase to initiate the Successful, Safe, and Healthy
Students program to support student achievement to
high standards and to help ensure that students are
mentally and physically healthy and ready to learn by
strengthening efforts to improve school climate and
improve students’ physical and mental health and well-
being.                                                                                                   0            +364,966
Increase for 21st Century Community Learning Centers to
enable States and eligible local entities to use program
funds to support expanded-learning-time programs as
well as full-service community schools, in addition to
continuing to support before- and after-school programs,
summer enrichment programs, and summer school
programs.                                                                                   1,166,166                 +100,000
Subtotal, increases                                                                         +604,966
2011 CR base   from base
Elimination of funds for Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities National Activities because the
Administration’s reauthorization proposal would
consolidate this program into the proposed Successful,
Safe, and Healthy Students program.                           $191,341   -$191,341
Elimination of funds for Elementary and Secondary
School Counseling because the Administration’s
reauthorization proposal would consolidate this program
into the proposed Successful, Safe, and Healthy
Students program.                                               55,000     -55,000
Elimination of funds for Physical Education because the
Safe, and Healthy Students program.                             79,000     -79,000
Elimination of funds for Foundations for Learning
because the Administration’s reauthorization proposal
would consolidate this program into the proposed
Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students program.                  1,000      -1,000
Elimination of funds for Mental Health Integration in
Schools because the Administration’s reauthorization
proposal would consolidate this program into the
proposed Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students
program.                                                         5,913      -5,913
Elimination of funds for Alcohol Abuse Reduction
Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students program.                 32,712     -32,712
Subtotal, decreases                                  -364,966
Net change                                   +240,000
2011           2011                2012          2012
Activity                                 Authorized         CR              Authorized      Request
Promise neighborhoods (ESEA-V-D, Subpart 1)                           01       $10,000     To be determined 1   $140,000
Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students (proposed
legislation)                                                        0                0   To be determined      364,966
Safe and drug-free schools and communities national
activities (ESEA IV-A, Subpart 2, Sections 4121 and
4122)                                                               02, 3    191,341                    02           0
(ESEA-V-D, Subpart 2)                                               02, 4     55,000                    02           0
Physical education program (ESEA-V-D, Subpart 10)                     02, 4     79,000                    02           0
Foundations for learning (ESEA-V-D, Subpart 14,
Section 5542)                                                       02, 4      1,000                    02           0
Mental health integration in schools (ESEA-V-D,
Subpart 14, Section 5541)                                           02, 4      5,913                    02           0
Alcohol abuse reduction (ESEA-IV-A, Subpart 2,
Section 4129)                                                       02, 3      32,712                   02            0
21st century community learning centers (ESEA-IV-B)                   05      1,166,166    To be determined 5   1,266,166
Unfunded authorizations
Safe and drug-free schools and communities State
grants (ESEA IV-A, Subpart 1)                                        06               0                  06           0
Character education (ESEA V-D, Subpart 3)                             06               0                  06           0
Mentoring program (ESEA section 4130)                                 06               0                  06           0
Authorizing Legislation—continued
2011                   2011                     2012                2012
Activity                                           Authorized                 CR                   Authorized            Request
Unfunded authorizations (continued)
Grants directed at preventing and reducing alcohol
abuse at institutions of higher education
(Section 2(e)(2) of P.L. 109-422)                                                $5,000                      0                         07                  0
Total definite authorization                                                   5,000                                                0
Total appropriation                                                                           $1,541,132                                    $1,781,132
Portion of the request subject to reauthorization                                                                                           1,781,132
NOTE: The Administration is proposing to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. FY 2012 funds for affected programs are proposed for
later transmittal and will be requested once the legislation is reauthorized.
The program is funded in FY 2011 through the Fund for the Improvement of Education: Programs of National Significance (ESEA Title V, Part D, Subpart 1),
which is authorized in FY 2010 through appropriations language. Authorizing legislation is sought for FY 2012.
The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. The program is proposed for consolidation in FY 2012 under new legislation.
Funds appropriated for Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities National Programs (inclusive of funds appropriated for the Alcohol Abuse Reduction
program) in fiscal year 2011 may not be increased above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2010 unless the amount appropriated for Safe and Drug-Free
Schools and Communities State Grants in fiscal year 2011 is at least 10 percent greater than the amount appropriated in 2010.
A total of $675,000 thousand is authorized to carry out all Title V, Part D activities.
The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. Reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2012.
The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. The Administration is not seeking reauthorizing legislation.
The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2011.
Estimate                  House                 Senate
to Congress               Allowance             Allowance          Appropriation
2004                                  $756,250              $825,068               $818,547              $855,775
(2004 Advance for 2005)               (330,000)             (330,000)
2005                                   838,897                801,369                891,460              860,771
2006                                   396,767                763,870                697,300              729,517
2007                                   266,627                      N/A1                  N/A1            729,518
Supplemental (P.L. 110-28)                                                                                  8,594
2008                                   324,248                760,575                697,112              693,404
2009                                   281,963                714,4812               666,3842             690,370
2010                                   413,608                395,753                438,0613             393,053
2011                                 1,786,166                384,841 4              426,053 5            393,053     6
2012                                 1,781,132
This account operated under a full-year continuing resolution (P.L. 110-5). House and Senate Allowance
amounts are shown as N/A (Not Available) because neither body passed a separate appropriations bill.
The levels for the House and Senate allowances reflect action on the regular annual 2009 appropriations bill,
which proceeded in the 110 Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the Senate Committee.
The level for the Senate allowance reflects Committee action only.
The level for the House allowance reflects the House-passed full-year continuing resolution
The level for appropriation reflects the continuing resolution (P.L. 111-332) passed on December 22, 2010.
Significant Items in FY 2011 Appropriations Reports
Coordination and Integration of Mental Health Services among Programs Funded in this
Senate:      The Committee requested that the Department report to the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees within 30 days of enactment of the appropriation on
how resources available within this account will be used to address the
Committee’s interest in funding for the coordination and integration of mental
health services within the activities funded in the account.
Response:    The Department will report to the Committees as requested.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2012 PRESIDENT&#39;S BUDGET
Program                                                                                                         2010 Appropriation      2011 CR         Y 2012 President&#39;s Budget
(in thousands of dollars)                                                                                                                   2012                 2012 President&#39;s Budget
Category        2010               2011 CR               President&#39;s              Compared to 2011 CR
Account, Program and Activity                                                             Code        Appropriation        Annualized               Budget              Amount              Percent
1. Promise Neighborhoods (ESEA V-D, subpart 1) &#185;                                                              D               10,000               10,000                150,000            140,000                1400.0%
2. Successful, safe, and healthy students:
(a) Successful, safe, and healthy students (proposed legislation)                                          D                     0                    0               364,966            364,966                        ---
(b) Safe and drug-free schools and communities national activities
(ESEA IV-A, Subpart 2, sections 4121 and 4122) 2                                                   D              191,341              191,341                       0          (191,341)               -100.0%
(c) Elementary and secondary school counseling (ESEA V-D, subpart 2)                                       D               55,000               55,000                       0           (55,000)               -100.0%
(d) Physical education program (ESEA V-D, subpart 10)                                                      D               79,000               79,000                       0           (79,000)               -100.0%
(e) Foundations for learning (ESEA V-D, subpart 14, section 5542) &#185;                                        D                1,000                1,000                       0            (1,000)               -100.0%
(f) Mental health integration in schools) ESEA V-D, subpart 14, section 5541) &#185;                            D                5,913                5,913                       0            (5,913)               -100.0%
(g) Alcohol abuse reduction (ESEA IV-A, Subpart 2, section 4129)                                           D               32,712               32,712                       0           (32,712)               -100.0%
Subtotal                                                                                                 364,966              364,966                364,966                  0                     0.0%
3. 21st century community learning centers (ESEA IV-B)                                                        D            1,166,166            1,166,166              1,266,166            100,000                     8.6%
Total                                                                                       D            1,541,132            1,541,132              1,781,132            240,000                     15.6%
NOTES: -Category Codes are as follows: D = discretionary program; M = mandatory program.
&#173;The FY 2011 level for appropriated funds is an annualized amount provided under the fourth Continuing Resolution (P.L. 111-322).
&#173;Programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act for which funds are requested in 2012 or that are shown as consolidated in 2012 are proposed under new authorizing legislation.
&#173;Multiple programs affected by the proposed ESEA reauthorization have been renamed and moved among accounts, some of which have also been renamed.
&#173;Account totals and programs shown within accounts for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 have been adjusted to be comparable to the fiscal year 2012 request.
Adjusted for comparability. FY 2010 funds were appropriated in the Innovation and Improvement account (proposed in FY 2012 as the Innovation and Instructional Teams account) under the Fund for the Improvement
of Education/Programs of National Significance.
FY 2010 amount for Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities National Activities includes $8,212 thousand to cover the 2 years of remaining continuation costs of Character Education awards. FY 2011 is the
final year of activity for these projects.
The programs in the Supporting Student Success account assist States, local educational
agencies, schools, and other organizations in developing and implementing programs and
activities that increase the extent to which students are physically and emotionally safe and
healthy; students have regular access to adults, either formally or informally, who care about
their success and have opportunities to engage with them; schools are environments where
students have the opportunity to access comprehensive supports along the birth-through-
college-and-to-career continuum that promote social and emotional development and
responsible citizenship; and students and teachers have the time and supports they need to
All of the programs in this account that would be funded in 2011 under the CR annualized level
are authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and are, therefore, subject to
reauthorization this year. The budget request assumes that the programs in this account will be
implemented in fiscal year 2012 under reauthorized legislation, and the request is based on the
Administration’s reauthorization proposal. Funding in the account is requested for the following
three programs that respond to the concerns described above:
   $150 million for the Promise Neighborhoods initiative, a $140 million increase over the 2011
annualized CR level, to provide competitive 1-year planning grants and 5-year
implementation grants to community-based organizations for the development and
implementation of comprehensive neighborhood programs designed to combat the effects of
poverty and improve educational and life outcomes for children and youth;
   $365 million for a new Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students program that would support
student achievement to high standards and help ensure that students are mentally and
physically healthy and ready to learn, by strengthening efforts to: improve school climate by
reducing drug use, violence, bullying, and harassment, and by improving school safety;
improve students’ physical health and well-being through the use of, or provision of access
to, comprehensive services that improve student nutrition, physical activity, and fitness; and
improve student’s mental health and well-being through the use of, or provision of access to,
comprehensive services, such as counseling, health, and mental health services, social
services, and innovative family engagement programs or supports; and
   $1.3 billion for the reauthorized 21st Century Community Learning Centers to support State
and local efforts to implement in-school and out-of-school strategies for providing students
(and, where appropriate, teachers and family members), particularly those in high-need
schools, the additional time, support, and enrichment activities needed to improve student
achievement. The Administration’s reauthorization proposal would continue to allow funds
to be used for before- and after-school programs, summer enrichment programs, and
summer school programs, and would also permit States and eligible local entities to use
funds support expanded-learning-time programs as well as full-service community schools.
The fiscal year 2010 appropriation funded, as would a full-year 2011 CR continue to fund,
numerous separate, narrowly targeted programs focused on students’ safety, health, and drug-
prevention with different purposes, requirements, and authorized activities. While each of these
programs has worthy goals, the result of these fragmented funding streams has been
inefficiencies at the Federal, State, and local levels. To compete for funds, eligible entities have
had to deal with numerous small grant competitions with different applications and
requirements, rather than focusing on improving outcomes for students. To manage programs,
the Department has focused on running separate grant competitions and monitoring
compliance, rather than providing strong support and directing funding to the most proven or
promising practices. The new Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students program constitutes a
major consolidation of these existing programs, and would provide increased flexibility to States
and districts in designing strategies that best reflect the needs of their students, schools, and
communities, and allow the Department to focus funding on strategies that improve student
achievement, especially for students in high-need schools. Accordingly, no funds are requested
in the budget for the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities National Activities,
Elementary and Secondary School Counseling, Physical Education, Foundations for Learning,
Mental Health Integration in Schools, and Alcohol Abuse Reduction programs, all of which
would be subsumed under the proposed consolidation.
(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title V, Part D, Subpart 1)
FY 2012 Authorization ($000s): To be determined 1
Budget Authority ($000s):
2011 CR                      2012                   Change
$10,0002               $150,000               +$140,000
2                                                                                        th
Funding levels in FY 2011 represent the annualized continuing resolution levels of the 4 Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 111-322).
In fiscal year 2010, the Congress provided initial funding for Promise Neighborhoods under the
Fund for the Improvement of Education: Programs of National Significance. The Administration
proposes to authorize Promise Neighborhoods in the Supporting Student Success account as
part of its reauthorization proposal for the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in
fiscal year 2012. Promise Neighborhoods provides competitive grants to eligible nonprofit
organizations, institutions of higher education, and Indian tribes to support the development or
implementation of a feasible, sustainable plan that combines a continuum of effective family and
community services, strong family supports, and ambitious, comprehensive education reforms –
with high-quality schools at the center – to improve the educational and life outcomes for
children and youth, from birth through college. The core belief behind this initiative is that
providing both effective, achievement-oriented schools and strong systems of support will offer
children the best hope for a better life.
The purpose of the Promise Neighborhoods program is to improve significantly the educational
and developmental outcomes of children and youth in our most distressed communities and to
transform those communities by (1) increasing the capacity of organizations that are focused on
achieving results for children and youth throughout an entire neighborhood; (2) building a
continuum of academic programs and community supports with great schools at the center; (3)
integrating programs so that solutions are implemented effectively and efficiently across
agencies; (4) developing the local infrastructure of policies, practices, systems, and resources to
sustain and ―scale up‖ proven, effective solutions across the broader region, beyond the initial
neighborhood; and (5) learning about the overall impact of the program and the relationship
between particular strategies implemented with Promise Neighborhoods grants and student
Each Promise Neighborhood grantee serves a high-need geographic area, as demonstrated by
multiple signs of distress. Each grantee has as a goal attaining a dramatic increase in the
number of children and youth from the service area who successfully enter college, though
grantees will pursue a range of comprehensive supports to reach that goal and other
intermediate goals. The Department encourages grantees to coordinate with other Federal
agencies, notably the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human
Services, and Justice, in order to leverage additional resources and address additional
community needs that limit the ability of children and youth to succeed educationally. The
Department requires applicants for planning and implementation grants to have a demonstrated,
positive track record in direct service work, specifically work that improves outcomes for families
Program funds support 1-year planning grants that enable grantees to conduct activities to
facilitate the development of a feasible plan for providing a continuum of services and supports
appropriate to the needs of children and youth within the target neighborhood, as well as
implementation grants to support the implementation of a well-conceived plan. Required
activities for planning grantees include: (1) conducting a comprehensive needs assessment and
―segmentation analysis‖ of children and youth in the neighborhood to be served; (2) developing
a plan to deliver a continuum of solutions with the potential to drive results; (3) establishing
effective partnerships to provide solutions and to commit the resources needed to sustain and
scale up what works; (4) planning, building, adapting, or expanding a longitudinal data system
that will provide information that the grantee will use for learning, continuous improvement, and
accountability; and (5) participating in a community of practice.
Planning grantees and other qualified entities with a feasible plan can apply for implementation
grants. In order to demonstrate successful completion of a plan, grantees must document their
ability to build effective partnerships. Grantees must operate or propose to work with at least
one public elementary or secondary school in the geographic area to be served and show the
ability to work effectively with a variety of other organizations, such as nonprofit organizations,
foundations, local agencies, and State agencies and, through those partnerships, bring a variety
of resources to the program, including matching funds. Required activities for implementation
grantees include: (1) implementation of a continuum of solutions that addresses neighborhood
challenges, as identified in a needs assessment and segmentation analysis, and that will
improve results for children and youth in the neighborhood; (2) building and strengthening
partnerships that provide solutions along the continuum of solutions and that will commit
resources to sustain and scale up what works; (3) collecting data on indicators at least annually,
and using and improving a data system for learning, continuous improvement, and
accountability; (4) demonstrating progress on goals for improving systems, such as by making
changes in policies and organizations, and by leveraging resources to sustain and scale up
what works; and (5) participating in a community of practice.
Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were as follows:
2007 ...................................................................... 0
2008 ...................................................................... 0
2009 ...................................................................... 0
2010 ........................................................... $10,000
2011 CR ....................................................... 10,000
The Administration requests $150 million in fiscal year 2012 for Promise Neighborhoods, an
increase of $140 million compared to the fiscal year 2011 CR level. Fiscal year 2012 funds
would support a new cohort of planning grants and implementation grants as well as
continuation awards for implementation grants made in fiscal year 2011. Eligible entities would
include non-profit organizations, institutions of higher education, and Indian tribes that partner
with one or more public schools.
Promise Neighborhoods supports the goal of all children and youth having access to a
continuum of ambitious, rigorous, and comprehensive education reforms, effective community
services, and strong systems of family and community support—with high-quality schools at the
center—necessary to address participants’ fundamental needs so that they succeed in school,
college, and beyond. Research studies and data have shown that children in poverty are more
likely than their more wealthy counterparts to face mental health and physical health challenges;
to have poor nutrition and exercise habits; to move homes and change schools; to attend high-
poverty, low-performing schools; and to live in neighborhoods where safety is a concern. These
are factors known to lead to negative behaviors or that by themselves provide additional
challenges for children in attaining a high-quality education. Surmounting these challenges
requires a more concentrated and comprehensive approach than Federal, State, and local
programs have historically taken.
In its first year, Promise Neighborhoods has benefited from the experiences of the Harlem
Children’s Zone (HCZ) project, a comprehensive, place-based, anti-poverty program, begun in
the 1990s, that is achieving impressive results for disadvantaged children and youth who live in
a 97-block zone in New York City. The HCZ model espouses five principles for success:
(1) serving an entire neighborhood comprehensively and at a large enough scale to have an
impact on all children in the region; (2) creating a pipeline of high-quality programs for children,
from birth through college, that includes parenting education, early childhood programs,
effective schools and after-school programs, and supports before and during college;
(3) building community among residents, institutions, and stakeholders, who help to create the
environment necessary for children’s healthy development; (4) evaluating program outcomes
and use the data for program improvement; and (5) cultivating a culture of success rooted in
passion, accountability, leadership, and teamwork.1
Evidence suggests that students in HCZ schools are achieving at significantly higher levels in
reading and math than other similarly situated students. Harvard University economics
professor Roland Fryer, Jr. and Harvard graduate student Will Dobbie’s 2009 assessment found
that the HCZ produced significant gains for the students in the zone; the ―HCZ is enormously
successful at boosting achievement in math and ELA [English/Language Arts] in elementary
school and math in middle school.‖2 The HCZ reports that its students are also showing
Whatever it Takes: A White Paper on the Harlem Children’s Zone,
http://www.hcz.org/images/stories/HCZ%20White%20Paper.pdf.
Will Dobbie and Roland G. Fryer, Jr., ―Are High-Quality Schools Enough to Close the Achievement Gap?
success in their college-acceptance and college-going rates, as well as their abilities to obtain
financial aid in the form of full scholarships and grants.
Since the President announced his goal of establishing Promise Neighborhoods, the
Department has received significant interest in the program. For the fiscal year 2010 planning
grant competition, the Department received 339 applications, but was only able to fund 21
1-year planning grant projects, including 1 project that supports a tribal community and 2
projects that support rural communities. In fiscal year 2011, the Department expects to award a
small number of 3-year implementation grants, with the possibility of extending them to 5 years.
While the demand for grants will likely continue to far exceed the available funding, the
Administration’s goal is to make significant investments in a small number of communities that
are able to demonstrate their capacity to plan and implement comprehensive high-quality
education reforms and family and community supports for all children and youth in an identified
geographic region, improve academic outcomes, and sustain their efforts and partner
commitments. The Secretary may give priority to applicants that propose to implement
comprehensive local early learning programs and services, as part of the applicant’s cradle-
through-college-to-career continuum. In FY 2012, the Department anticipates making
implementation awards averaging $6-8 million. Though this amount would serve as only part of
the annual funding needed to implement a Promise Neighborhood project, the Department
believes that the Federal investment will help leverage additional financial support from non-
Federal sources like philanthropies, private sources, and other governmental entities.
The proposed legislation would also authorize the Department to reserve up to 5 percent of the
Promise Neighborhoods appropriation for national leadership activities, such as research, data
collection, outreach, dissemination, technical assistance, including the development of and
support for ―communities of practice,‖ and peer review. The Institute of Education Sciences
(IES) will fund a national evaluation of the Promise Neighborhoods program to commence in
fiscal year 2012, with funding requested in the IES account. Funds for technical assistance
activities would support communities of practice, the development of a web site that will include
a data dashboard for data management and reporting, direct assistance and coaching for
grantees, and annual project directors’ meetings.
In addition, the Department’s participation in the Neighborhood Revitalization Working Group
(NRWG), part of the Domestic Policy Council’s broader urban affairs agenda, may provide
grantees with an additional approach to technical assistance through the interagency technical
assistance project (ITTAP). The NRWG is developing and executing the Administration’s place-
based strategy1 for providing local communities with the tools they need to change
neighborhoods of concentrated poverty into neighborhoods of opportunity. The NRWG is
comprised of representatives from the Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Health
and Human Services, Justice, Treasury, and Education. The group will work jointly to fund
Evidence from a Bold Social Experiment in Harlem‖ (working paper, National Bureau of Economic Research,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, April 2009).
See also Memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Developing Place-Based Policies for
the FY 2011 Budget, August 11, 2009, available online at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/memoranda_fy2009/m09-28.pdf
integrated technical assistance to help high-need neighborhoods develop comprehensive,
collaborative approaches to neighborhood revitalization.
2010             2011 CR                    2012
Number of new awards                                         21                      0                18-20
Funding for new awards                                  $10,000                      0              $10,000
Number of new awards                                            0                   3                16-19
Funding for new awards                                          0              $9,750             $120,500
Number of continuing awards                                     0                   0                    3
Funding for continuing awards                                   0                   0              $12,000
Technical Assistance                                            0                   0                $7,000
ITTAP                                                           0                $250                 $350
Peer review of new award applications                           01                  01                $150
Peer review costs in FY 2010 and FY 2011 are provided through the Fund for the Improvement of Education:
Programs of National Significance (ESEA Title V, Part D, Subpart 1).
The Department has established the following performance measure for planning grantees: the
percentage of planning grantees that produce a high-quality plan as measured by their receiving
at least 90 percent of 100 possible points in the subsequent competition for an implementation
grant. The Department’s reauthorization proposal for Promise Neighborhoods and Notice of
Proposed Priorities for FY 2011 and subsequent years includes education and family and
community support indicators to measure the results of implementation grantees.
FY 2012 Authorization ($000s): To be determined
2011 CR                  2012              Change
0            $364,966           +$364,966
Under the proposed Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students (SSHS) program, which would
build on competitions the Department is conducting in 2010 and 2011 under Safe and Drug-
Free Schools and Communities National Programs, the Department would award competitive
grants to increase the capacity of State educational agencies (SEAs), high-need local
educational agencies (LEAs), and their partners to develop and implement programs and
activities that improve conditions for learning so that students are safe, healthy, and successful.
Programs and activities supported by this program would include those that reduce or prevent
drug use, alcohol use, bullying, harassment, or violence and promote and support the physical
and mental well-being of students.
From the SSHS appropriation, the Department would be authorized to fund continuation awards
for grants and contracts made under the following programs prior to enactment of Elementary
and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorization: Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities National Programs; Elementary and Secondary School Counseling; Physical
Education; and Alcohol Abuse Reduction. The Department would also be authorized to reserve
up to 1.5 percent of the SSHS appropriation for program evaluation. From the remainder the
Department would: (1) set aside up to 1 percent for programs for Indian youth administered by
the Department of the Interior; (2) set aside up to 1 percent for the Outlying Areas; (3) reserve
the amount the Secretary determines is needed for National Activities; and (4) allocate the
remainder to State and local grants.
Under the State and Local Grants portion of the program the Department may award
competitive grants to SEAs, high-need LEAs, and their partners for development and
implementation of comprehensive strategies designed to continuously improve conditions for
learning and student outcomes, including activities aimed at preventing and reducing substance
use, violence, harassment or bullying; promoting student mental, behavioral, and emotional
health; strengthening family and student engagement in school; reducing out-of-school
suspensions; implementing positive behavioral interventions and supports; and implementing
programs designed to improve students’ physical health and well-being, including their physical
activity, nutrition, and fitness.
Grantees would be required to develop, adapt, or adopt and implement a State- or district-wide
school climate measurement system that would consist of incident data (such as data on
suspensions and expulsions) and information on the conditions for learning collected through a
comprehensive needs assessment (which may include surveys) of students, staff, and families.
The school climate measurement system would be used to identify school and student needs
and implement activities that meet those needs. Additionally, this information would be
aggregated at the school-building level and reported to the public, including parents, in a timely
States would be permitted to reserve a portion of their funds for State activities and would be
required to subgrant the remainder of their grant funds to high-need LEAs and their partners.
Priority for grants and subgrants would be provided (1) to grantees that would focus the use of
funds on high-need schools or on schools with the greatest needs as identified by the school
climate measurement system, (2) partnerships between LEAs and other eligible entities, and
(3) applicants proposing a comprehensive strategy to ensure that schools provide the conditions
The Department would use funds reserved for National Activities to carry out national leadership
activities that support safe, healthy, and drug-free students, including research, dissemination
and outreach, and technical assistance, as well as for activities to help ensure that college
campuses are safe and healthy environments.
The Administration requests $365 million in 2012 for the proposed Successful, Safe, and
Healthy Students program. The program is included in the Administration’s ESEA
reauthorization proposal and would consolidate several existing, sometimes narrowly targeted,
programs that seek to help schools provide the programs and activities that support student
success (including programs that support drug and violence prevention, alcohol abuse
reduction, physical education, and mental health and school counseling).
The new program, which builds on the Safe and Supportive Schools grant competition the
Department created in 2010 under Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities National
Activities, would increase the capacity of States, high-need districts, and their partners to
provide the resources and supports necessary to ensure that students are safe, healthy, and
successful. Further, the program would also provide increased flexibility for States and districts
to design and implement strategies that best reflect the needs of their students and
The Administration recognizes the need for continued support of efforts to ensure that schools
provide a safe and supportive environment. However, the existing array of Federal programs in
this area is too fragmented to provide school officials with the tools they need to provide the
conditions for learning. Nor are the current programs well-structured to enable educators and
policymakers to identify the districts with the greatest needs or to determine the most effective
practices and ―scale them up‖ through wider replication. The Successful, Safe, and Healthy
Students State and Local Grants program would address these problems by consolidating the
existing funding streams into a single comprehensive program that generates information to
drive resources to where they are most needed and in a manner that will address local needs
more effectively, encourage continuous improvement, and generate information on what works.
Within the $365 million requested for the first year of this program, the Department would use
$44.8 million for State grants and would reserve $79.7 million for the following National
   $44.9 million for new Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative grant awards for
comprehensive projects to help LEAs and communities create safe, disciplined, and
drug-free learning environments, promote healthy childhood development, and provide
needed mental health services for youth. The Department of Education funds this
initiative jointly with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and
administers it in collaboration with both HHS and the Department of Justice (DOJ). To
be eligible for Safe Schools/Healthy Students funding, an LEA must demonstrate
agreement in the form of a partnership among the major community systems serving
students – schools, an early childhood agency, the local public mental health authority,
law enforcement, and juvenile justice – to work collaboratively in assessing needs and
providing programs and services in the following five areas: (1) promoting early
childhood social and emotional learning and development; (2) promoting mental,
emotional, and behavioral health; (3) connecting families, schools, and communities; (4)
preventing and reducing alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use; and (5) creating safe and
violence-free schools. Education, HHS, and DOJ plan to redesign the 2011 competition
based on their experience implementing this initiative, the results of an ongoing
evaluation of Safe Schools/Healthy Students projects, and input from grantee focus
   $8.3 million for grants to SEAs and related technical assistance for helping LEAs prevent
and mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from emergencies and crisis events.
   $5.0 million for Project SERV (School Emergency Response to Violence), which
provides education-related services, including increased safety and security, to LEAs
and IHEs in which the learning environment has been disrupted by a violent or traumatic
crisis. The $5 million request should ensure that funds are available to provide crisis
response services in the event that the Department is called upon to do so.
   $10.0 million for healthy college campuses activities (grants and technical assistance to
IHEs) to help support drug and violence prevention programs, including alcohol and
other drug recovery and relapse prevention programs, and other efforts to prevent
under-age, binge, and high-risk drinking, drug use, and violent behavior by college
   $5.0 million for a truancy prevention initiative to be funded jointly by the Department of
Education and the Department of Justice. Funds would be used to develop and
implement a rigorous multi-site test, using random assignment, of one or more promising
program models or interventions to prevent truancy, enhance educational achievement,
and reduce delinquency. The findings will help Federal and other agencies and
organizations to maximize limited resources by directing funds to programs and
strategies demonstrated to work, and will identify models and interventions that have the
greatest potential to be successful when taken to scale.
      $6.5 million for other activities that promote safe and healthy students, such as research
and development, data collection, dissemination, outreach, developing and
implementing programs to improve conditions for learning, and related forms of technical
and financial assistance to States, LEAs, non-profit organizations, and IHEs.
The fiscal year 2012 request for Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students would provide
approximately $234.9 million for continuation awards for projects originally funded under Safe
and Drug-Free Schools and Communities National Programs ($122.8 million), Alcohol Abuse
Reduction ($27.2 million), Elementary and Secondary School Counseling ($33.7 million), and
Physical Education programs ($51.1 million).
State grant award funds (new)                                                      $44,560
Peer review of new award applications                                                  211
Total budget authority                                                              44,771
Number of SEA awards                                                                     8
Average SEA award                                                                   $5,570
Grant award funding (new)                                                          $44,498
Peer review of new award applications                                                  400
Total budget authority                                                              44,898 1
Number of new awards                                                                    70
Average award                                                                         $636
Inclusive of continuation costs the request for Safe Schools/Healthy Students is $75,412 thousand.
National Activities (continued)
SEA grant award funds (new)                                                        $6,000
Other school safety initiatives                                                     2,201
Peer review of new award applications                                                 100
Total budget authority                                                             8,301
Number of new awards                                                                   12
Average award                                                                        $500
Project SERV (School Emergency
Response to Violence)                                                             $5,000
Statewide Coalition Grants
Grant award funding (new)                                                       $5,414
Number of new awards                                                                13
Model Prevention Grants
Grant award funding (new)                                                       $1,250
Number of new awards                                                                 5
Recovery and Relapse Prevention Grants
Grant award funds (new)                                                         $3,250
Number of new awards                                                                10
Peer review of new award applications                                                $100
Total budget authority                                                          $10,014 2
Truancy Prevention Initiative                                                      $5,000
Other Activities                                                                   $6,526 3
Set-Asides for DOI Schools and
Outlying Areas                                                                    $2,603
Inclusive of continuation costs the request for Healthy College Campuses is $12,000 thousand.
Inclusive of continuation costs the request for Other Activities is $9,989 thousand.
Continuation Awards for Programs
Consolidated into Successful, Safe,
and Healthy Students:
SDFSC National Activities
Safe and Supportive Schools                                                     $86,837
Safe Schools/Healthy Students                                                    30,515 1
Healthy College Campuses                                                          1,986 2
Other Activities                                                                  3,463 3
Subtotal, SDFSC National Activities                                              122,801
Alcohol Abuse Reduction                                                           27,244
Counseling                                                                      33,687
Physical Education                                                                51,122
Total continuation costs                                                      234,853
Evaluation                                                                        $3,000
The Department has not yet developed performance measures for this proposed program, but
they will likely resemble the following measures that the Department is using for the Safe and
Supportive Schools Grant competition funded under SDFSC National Programs in 2010. The
2010 Safe and Supportive Schools grants performance measures are:
   Percentage of eligible schools implementing programmatic interventions funded by Safe
and Supportive Schools that experience a decrease in the percentage of students who
report current (30-day) alcohol use;
and Supportive Schools that experience an increase in the percentage of students who
report personal harassment or bullying on school property during the current school
and Supportive Schools that experience an improvement in their school safety score;
and Supportive Schools that experience a worsening in their school safety score;
and Supportive Schools that experience a decrease in the number of suspensions for
violent incidents without physical injury; and
and Supportive Schools that experience an increase in the number of suspensions for
violent incidents without physical injury.
(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part A, Subpart 2)
FY 2012 Authorization ($000s): 01
2011 CR                     2012                Change
$191,3412                       0            -$191,341
The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. The program is proposed for consolidation in FY 2012 under
Funding levels in FY 2011 represent the annualized continuing resolution levels of the 4th Continuing
The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities (SDFSC) National Programs statute
authorizes the Department to carry out a wide variety of discretionary activities designed to
prevent the illegal use of drugs and violence among, and promote safety and discipline for,
students. These activities may be carried out through grants to or contracts with public and
private organizations and individuals, or through agreements with other Federal agencies, and
       The development and demonstration of innovative strategies for the training of school
personnel, parents, and members of the community;
       The development, demonstration, scientifically based evaluation, and dissemination of
innovative and high-quality drug and violence prevention programs and activities;
       The provision of information on drug abuse education and prevention to the Department of
Health and Human Services for dissemination;
       The provision of information on violence prevention and education and on school safety to
the Department of Justice for dissemination;
       Technical assistance to Governors, State agencies, local educational agencies, and other
recipients of SDFSC funding to build capacity to develop and implement high-quality,
effective drug and violence prevention programs;
       Assistance to school systems that have particularly severe drug and violence problems,
including hiring drug prevention and school safety coordinators, or assistance to support
appropriate responses to crisis situations;
       The development of education and training programs, curricula, instructional materials, and
professional training and development for preventing and reducing the incidence of crimes
and conflicts motivated by hate in localities most directly affected by hate crimes; and
   Activities in communities designated as empowerment zones or enterprise communities that
connect schools to community-wide efforts to reduce drug and violence problems.
   The collection of data on the incidence and prevalence of drug use and violence in
elementary and secondary schools and in institutions of higher education.
2007 ...........................................   $149,706
2008 ...........................................    137,665
2009 ...........................................    139,912
2010 ...........................................    191,341
2011 CR .....................................       191,341
The Administration is not requesting separate funding for the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities National Activities program for fiscal year 2012. In place of this and several other,
sometimes narrowly targeted, programs that address students’ safety, health, and drug-
prevention, the Administration has proposed to create, through the reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), a broader Successful, Safe, and Healthy
Students program that would increase the capacity of States, districts, and their partners to
provide the resources and supports necessary for safe, healthy, and successful students. This
new program, which builds on the Safe and Supportive Schools grant competition the
Department created in 2010 under SDFSC National Activities, would help schools provide
conditions for learning, including by implementing activities that reduce or prevent drug use,
alcohol use, bullying, harassment, or violence, and promote and support the physical and
mental well-being of students.
The Administration’s reauthorization proposal recognizes the challenge of attaining high student
achievement in schools where students are threatened by drugs, violence, crime, bullying,
harassment, or intimidation, all of which continue to be serious problems affecting students.
The public also continues to be extremely concerned about school safety, whether because of
school shootings, influenza pandemics, natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, or the
September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States. The reauthorization proposal would
address these and related issues, but in a much more comprehensive and flexible manner than
can be attempted through the current portfolio of fragmented programs.
Under the proposed Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students program, State educational
agencies (SEAs), high-need local educational agencies (LEAs), and their partners would be
eligible to apply for competitive grants to develop and implement programs that measure and
improve conditions for learning based on local needs. The overall result is that the new
program would provide grantees and their partners with the resources necessary to design and
implement strategies necessary for safe, healthy, and successful students, which the
Administration believes will support improved student academic achievement. Further, this new
program would provide increased flexibility for States and districts to design and implement
strategies that best reflect the needs of their students and communities (which may include
programs that support drug and violence prevention and other aspects of school safety).
The reauthorization proposal would include a National Activities authority under which the
Department would carry out activities similar to some of the current Safe and Drug-Free Schools
and Communities National Activities (such as Project SERV, emergency preparedness grants,
the Safe Schools/Healthy Students initiative, and assistance to institutions of higher education).
In addition, the fiscal year 2012 budget request for Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students
includes funds to pay 2012 continuation costs for Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities National Activities awarded in previous years.
2010             2011 CR                2012
Grant award funds (new)                         $39,102             $37,019                    0
Grant award funds (continuations)                     0              46,187                    0
Peer review of new award applications               220                 200                    0
Technical assistance contract                     1,760               1,565
Character education grants                        8,212                   0                    0
Total budget authority                           49,294              84,971                    0
Number of new awards                                 11                   10                   0
Number of continuation awards                         0                   11
Character education continuation grants               7                    0                   0
Average award (excludes character
education grants)                               $3,555               $3,962                   0
School and Campus Preparedness Initiative
SEA grant award funds (new)                           0               $4,000                   0
LEA grant award funds (new)                     $30,286                    0                   0
IHE grant awards funds (new)                      7,601                    0                   0
Other school safety initiatives                   1,813                2,202                   0
Peer review of new award applications               300                  100                   0
Total budget authority                         40,000                6,302                   0
Number of new awards                                122                    8                   0
Average award                                      $311                 $500                   0
2010           2011 CR      2012
Grant award funds (new)                           0          $11,500        0
Grant award funds (continuations)           $77,816           63,487        0
Peer review of new award applications             0              425        0
Total budget authority                     77,816           75,412        0
Number of new awards                             0                  30      0
Number of continuation awards                  116                  89      0
Average award                                 $671                $630      0
Grant award funds (new)                  $2,499              $4,730     0
Number of new awards                         12                  12     0
Grant award funds (new)                   $751               $1,250     0
Number of new awards                         5                    5     0
Grant award funds (new)                         0            $2,949     0
Number of awards                              0                10     0
Grant award funds (continuations)        $2,978                0        0
Number of awards                           23                0        0
Training and technical assistance center     $1,621           $1,880        0
Peer review of new award applications           $20             $100        0
Total budget authority                     $7,869          $10,909        0
Building State Capacity for Preventing
Youth Drug Use and Violence
Grant award funds (new)                      $4,062                  0      0
Peer review of new award applications            80                  0      0
Total budget authority                        4,142                  0      0
Number of new awards                               28                0      0
Average award                                     145                0      0
2010               2011 CR                  2012
Grant award funds (continuations)                      $5,636                        0                 0
Student Drug Testing Institute                            187                        0                 0
Total budget authority                                5,823                        0                 0
Number of continuation awards                              49                        0                 0
Average award                                            $119                        0                 0
Other Activities                                       $6,397                $13,747                   0
NOTE: FY 2012 continuation costs of approximately $122,801 thousand would be provided from the
appropriation for the Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students program.
This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA
goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data and an assessment of the
progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on
the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in fiscal
year 2012 and future years, and the resources and efforts invested by those served by this
program. Unless stated otherwise the source of these GPRA data are grantee annual and final
Goal: To help ensure that schools are safe, disciplined, and drug-free by developing
rigorous measurement systems and using data to implement high-quality drug- and
Objective: Safe and Supportive Schools grantees will demonstrate substantial progress in
improving conditions for learning in targeted schools.
The Department will have baseline data by 2013 on the following measures for the 2010 cohort
of Safe and Supportive Schools grants (and baseline data by 2014 for the 2011 cohort):
Building State Capacity for Preventing Youth Drug Use and Violence
Goal: To help ensure that schools are safe, disciplined, and drug free by promoting
implementation of high-quality drug- and violence-prevention strategies.
Objective: Building State Capacity grantees will enhance the capacity of State agencies to
support LEAs in their efforts to create and sustain a safe and drug-free school environment.
The Department will have baseline data in 2012 on the following performance measure for the
fiscal year 2010 cohort of Building State Capacity for Preventing Youth Drug Use and Violence
grants: the percentage of grantees that submit a high-quality plan to create and sustain an
effective infrastructure to support the implementation of effective drug and violence prevention
Objective: Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative grantees will demonstrate substantial
progress in improving student behaviors and school environments.
The following performance information is for the 2007, 2008, and 2009 cohorts of Safe
Schools/Healthy Students grants. (There was no new cohort of Safe Schools/Healthy Students
grants in 2010.) A decision will be made later in 2011 on whether to make any changes to the
measures for the 2011 cohort.
Measure: The percentage of grantees that experience a decrease in the percentage of their students who
did not go to school on one or more days during the past 30 days because they felt unsafe at school, or on
Year                         Target                                     Actual
2007         2008           2009          2007          2008           2009
Cohort       Cohort         Cohort        Cohort        Cohort         Cohort
2008                                                         75
2009              76.5                                      37.5            30
2010              78.8           50
2011              83.3          51.5
2012               85           54.6
have been in a physical fight on school property in the 12 months prior to the survey.
Year                             Target                                      Actual
2007           2008           2009         2007            2008     2009
Cohort         Cohort         Cohort       Cohort          Cohort   Cohort
2008                                                           75.5
2009                 77                                        54.5           66.7
2010                79.3           68
2011                84.1           70
2012                 85           74.2
Measure: The percentage of grantees that report a decrease in the percentage of their students who
Year                           Target                                  Actual
2007          2008        2009          2007          2008           2009
Cohort        Cohort      Cohort        Cohort        Cohort         Cohort
2008                                                      53.8
2009              54.9                                    42.9            50
2010              56.5           51
2011              59.9          52.5
2012              65.3          55.6
Measure: The percentage of grantees that report a decrease in students who report current (30-day)
Year                       Target                                     Actual
2007           2008           2009          2007         2008            2009
Cohort        Cohort          Cohort        Cohort       Cohort          Cohort
2008                                                      71.4
2009          72.8                                        47.8           56
2010           75            57.1
2011          79.5           58.8
2012           85            62.3
Measure: The percentage of grantees that report an increase in the number of students receiving school-
Year                        Target                                      Actual
2007        2008           2009           2007          2008          2009
Cohort     Cohort          Cohort         Cohort        Cohort        Cohort
2008                                                        66.7
2009               70                                        90           83.3
2010               90         87.5
2011               90          90
2012               90          90
Measure: The percentage of grantees that report an increase in the percentage of mental health referrals
for students that result in mental health services being provided in the community.
Year                             Target                                     Actual
2007           2008          2009           2007         2008      2009
Cohort        Cohort         Cohort         Cohort       Cohort    Cohort
2008                                                             75
2009                78.8                                         75           60
2010                86.6            63
2011                 90            69.3
2012                 90            79.7
Additional information: An assessment of progress on certain of the above measures can be
made later in 2011 after receipt of 2010 data for the 2007 cohort. Targets for the 2009 cohort
will be set after receipt of baseline data later in 2011. Declining performance between 2008 and
2009 for the 2007 cohort has a likely explanation. Due to the lag time in start-up for a majority
of projects, only a small proportion of grantees reported data at the end of their first year. Those
grantees tended to perform above average for the cohort as a whole. Data for the following
(second) year generally represent the entire universe of projects in the cohort, inclusive of the
below-average performers.
The following performance information is for the most recent three prior cohorts of Safe
Schools/Healthy Students grants.
Measure: The percentage of Safe Schools/Healthy Students grant sites that experience a decrease in the
number of violent incidents at schools during the 3-year grant period.
Year                             Target                                Actual
2004           2005          2006            2004    2005          2006
Cohort         Cohort        Cohort         Cohort   Cohort        Cohort
2007                 90                                           55      54.3          50
2008                 90            62.4          57.5            76.5     61.5         68.8
2009                               65.2          60.0                                  58.8
2010                                             62.5
Measure: The percentage of Safe Schools/Healthy Students grant sites that experience a decrease in
substance abuse during the 3-year grant period.
Year                          Target                                   Actual
2004          2005        2006          2004           2005          2006
Cohort        Cohort      Cohort        Cohort         Cohort        Cohort
2007              90                                      66.7          43.75         66.7
2008              90            48.1       73.4           83.3           34.2         66.7
2009                            50.3      76.67                                       66.7
2010                                        80
Measure: The percentage of Safe Schools/Healthy Students grant sites that improve school attendance
during the 3-year grant period.
2004      2005          2006          2004           2005           2006
Cohort    Cohort        Cohort        Cohort         Cohort         Cohort
2007                90                                  64.7           40.5           62.5
2008                90      44.6          68.8          66.7           44.7           68.4
2009                        46.6          71.9                                        42.1
2010                                      75.0
Additional information: Data present a mixed picture. Generally they show improvement
within cohorts on individual measures across years; but of the 15 targets for which data are
available, only 2 targets were met. The data generally show an improvement on the measures
for the 2006 cohort compared to the prior cohorts.
Objective: Student drug testing grantees will make substantial progress in reducing substance
abuse incidence among target students.
Measure: The percentage of Student Drug Testing grantees that experience a 5 percent annual
reduction in the incidence of past-month drug use by students in the target population.
Year                        Targets                                           Actual
2003      2005     2006      2007     2008     2003      2005     2006     2007       2008
Cohort    Cohort   Cohort    Cohort   Cohort   Cohort    Cohort   Cohort   Cohort     Cohort
2007     50        33                                   25
2008               50       50        33                                  67        33
2009                        70        50       33                         13        42        49
2010                        70        60       50                         57        50        65
2011                                           70
reduction in the incidence of past-year drug use by students in the target population.
2007     50        25                                    0
2008               50       50        33                                  56        33
2009                        60        50       33                         13        33        58
2010                        60        60       60                         57        54        58
2011                                           65
Additional information: Data for the 2006 cohort were collected as part of the Institute for
Education Sciences evaluation of the 2006 cohort of student drug testing projects. The survey
instrument for the evaluation collected data about student drug use for the past 6 months, rather
than for the past year. Data for the 2005 cohort of grantees are not provided because the data
reported by grantees were not sufficiently comparable across sites to be aggregated
meaningfully for the cohort.
Goal: To help develop and implement comprehensive emergency management
processes for schools.
Objective: REMS grantees will demonstrate substantial progress in improving emergency
mitigation/prevention, preparedness, response and recovery efforts at their schools.
Note: REMS corresponds to the LEA grants activity under ―School and Campus Emergency
Preparedness‖ in the program output measures.
Measure: The percentage of grant sites that demonstrate they have increased the number of hazards
addressed by the improved school emergency response plan as compared to the baseline plan.
2006          2007         2008          2006           2007         2008
Cohort        Cohort       Cohort        Cohort         Cohort       Cohort
2009                                                       97.6
2010                            98                                       88.5
2011                                          98
Measure: The percentage of grant sites that have a plan for, and commitment to, the sustainability and
continuous improvement of a school emergency management plan by the district and community partners
beyond the period of Federal financial assistance.
Year                            Target                                  Actual
2006            2007       2008           2006          2007           2009
Cohort          Cohort     Cohort         Cohort        Cohort         Cohort
2009                                                        98
2010                              98                                     93.8
Measure: The percentage of grant sites that demonstrate improved knowledge of school/and or district
emergency management policies and procedures, or both, by school staff with responsibility for
Year                           Target                                    Actual
2006            2007         2008          2006           2007            2008
Cohort          Cohort       Cohort        Cohort         Cohort          Cohort
2010                             98                                       91.6
2011                                           98
Additional information: For the 2006 cohort only, this last measure was instead the
percentage of grant sites that demonstrate improved response time and quality of response to
practice drills and simulated crises. For the 2007 and 2008 cohorts that measure was dropped
in lieu of the measure described above. Data for the 2007 cohort will be available later in 2011.
Beginning with the 2009 cohort of grants, the Department discontinued all three of the above
measures and replaced them with the following new measure, for which baseline data will
become available beginning in 2012: the average number of National Incident Management
System (NIMS) course completions by key personnel at the start of the grant compared to the
average number of NIMS course completions by key personnel at the end of the grant.
Note: EMHE corresponds to the IHE grants activity under ―School and Campus Emergency
Goal: To help develop and implement comprehensive emergency management and
violence prevention processes for institutions of higher education.
Objective: EMHE grantees will demonstrate substantial progress in improving emergency
mitigation/prevention, preparedness, response and recovery efforts on their campuses.
Later in 2011, the Department will have baseline data for the first (2008) cohort of EMHE grants.
The performance measure for the 2008 and 2009 EMHE grant cohorts was: demonstration of a
50 percent increase at the end of the project period in the number of course completions by
their higher education institution key personnel in key National Incident Management System
(NIMS) courses compared to the number of such courses completed at the start of the grant
Beginning with the 2010 cohort, the Department discontinued that measure and replaced it with
the following, for which baseline data will become available beginning in 2013: the average
number of NIMS training course completions by key personnel at the start of the grant
compared to the average number of NIMS course completions by key personnel at the end of
Postsecondary Prevention: Grants to Prevent High-Risk Drinking or Violent Behavior Among
Note: the following corresponds to the drug and violence prevention grants activity under
―Healthy College Campuses‖ in the program output measures.
Goal: To reduce alcohol abuse and violent behavior among postsecondary students at
institutions of higher education, on campuses, and/or in surrounding communities.
Objective: Support the implementation of research-based alcohol abuse and violence
prevention programs at institutions of higher education.
Measure: At the end of these 2-year projects, the percentage of grantees that achieve a 5 percent
decrease in high-risk drinking among students served by the project.
Year                            Target                                    Actual
2005         2007         2009            2005         2007          2009
Cohort       Cohort       Cohort         Cohort        Cohort        Cohort
2007                                                           81
2009                              85                                       73.3
2011                                           85
decrease in violent behavior among students served by the project.
Year                           Target                                     Actual
2005          2007          2009           2005          2007          2009
Cohort        Cohort        Cohort         Cohort        Cohort        Cohort
2007                                                          67
2009                            70.4                                        100
2011                                           75
Additional information: The Department last made new grant awards under this competition
in 2009. A further assessment of progress can be made in 2012 after the Department compiles
2011 data from the 2009 cohort of grantees.
Postsecondary Prevention: Grants for Coalitions to Prevent and Reduce Alcohol Abuse at
Note: the following corresponds to the statewide coalitions grants activity under ―Healthy
College Campuses‖ in the program output measures.
Goal: To prevent and reduce the rate of under-age alcohol consumption, including binge
drinking, among students.
Objective: Support statewide coalitions that implement underage drinking prevention programs
at institutions of higher education and in surrounding communities
The Department will have baseline data in 2012 on the following performance measures for the
fiscal year 2009 cohort of Grants for Coalitions to Prevent and Reduce Alcohol Abuse at IHEs:
(1) the percentage of grantees that demonstrate a reduction in 30-day alcohol use among
under-age students at participating IHEs; and (2) the percentage of grantees that demonstrate a
reduction in 30-day binge drinking among under-age students at participating IHEs.
In addition to collecting data on the above performance measures directly from grantees, the
Department has conducted (and is conducting) several evaluations to assess the impact of
programs and interventions supported with SDFSC National Activities funds. Each of the
following evaluations has been funded by SDFSC National Activities, except for the Safe
Schools/Healthy Students evaluation, which is being funded by the Department of Health and
Two national evaluations of the Safe Schools/Healthy Students initiative have been conducted,
the first under a cooperative agreement with the Department of Justice and the second under
contract with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration in the
Department of Health and Human Services. Both were jointly managed by the Departments of
Education, Health and Human Services, and Justice. The evaluations sought, overall, to
document the effectiveness of collaborative community efforts to promote safe schools and
provide opportunities for healthy childhood development.
The first evaluation focused on the fiscal year 1999, 2000, and 2001 cohorts under the initiative,
a total of 97 sites. Three waves of data were collected from each of the 97 sites, with data
collection spanning 2001-2004. (Data collection was conducted three times over the life of each
3-year grant cohort.) The evaluation collected data from principals and teachers in schools
served by these sites, as well as from middle and high school students in a more limited subset
of ―sentinel‖ sites representing various regions of the country and a variety of population
densities. The sentinel sites included a total of 410 schools. (Surveying students in all 3,932
schools among the 97 sites would have been cost prohibitive.)
Changes were calculated between wave one and wave three data collection for each of the
three grant cohorts. Some of the data from this first evaluation are already available, and some
statistically significant changes (at the p=&lt;.05 level) in student outcomes related to alcohol,
tobacco, and other drug use and incidents of violence have been identified. For example:
   Student self-report data for high school students indicated decreases in 30-day alcohol and
tobacco use, cigarette sales on school property, and perceived disapproval of peer
substance use. Current alcohol use was down 10 percent, and current tobacco use
declined 13 percent. Middle and high school students also reported feeling less unsafe at
school (a 7 percent reduction for middle school students and a 6 percent reduction for high
   Teachers in elementary schools reported a 5 percent reduction in classroom bullying, a
21 percent reduction in feeling threatened by a student, and an 11 percent reduction in
being verbally abused by a student. Finally, although not statistically significant, elementary
school principals reported a 33 percent reduction in current-year tobacco infractions and a
36 percent reduction in total alcohol infractions, and elementary school teachers reported an
8 percent reduction in classroom fighting.
The second evaluation examined activities implemented by 86 sites in the fiscal year 2005,
2006, and 2007 cohorts. It found that over a 3-year period the school districts participating in
the Safe Schools/Healthy Students grant program reported fewer students involved in violent
incidents, decreased levels of experienced and witnessed violence, and improvements in overall
school safety and violence prevention. Key findings from the second evaluation, for the 2005
cohort of grants (the cohort for which data collection and analysis are completed), include the
   A 15 percent decrease in the number of students involved in violent incidents during the
grant period (from 17,800 in year 1 to 15,163 in year 3).
   A 12 percent decrease in the number of students reporting that they had experienced or
witnessed violence from year 1 of the grant period to year 3.
   Most staff at grantee schools reporting that the initiative had made their schools safer. By
year 3 of the grant, 84 percent said the initiative had improved school safety, 77 percent
said it had reduced violence on campus, and 75 percent said it had reduced violence in the
Further findings from the second evaluation are expected to be available later in 2011.
In 2006, the Department launched an impact evaluation to assess the effectiveness of random
mandatory student drug testing. The evaluation was designed to address the following research
questions: (1) Do high school students who are subject to mandatory-random drug testing (e.g.,
athletes, participants in competitive extra-curricular activities) report less use of tobacco,
alcohol, and illicit substances compared to students in high schools without drug testing
policies?; (2) Do students in high schools with mandatory-random drug testing policies, but who
are not subject to drug testing, report less use of tobacco, alcohol, and illicit substances
compared to students in high schools without drug testing policies?; and (3) What are the
characteristics of the drug testing policies implemented by participating treatment schools, and
what types of other strategies are treatment or control schools using to reduce substance use
This 4-year evaluation involved 36 schools from 7 grantees that received awards under the
Department’s student drug testing grant competition in 2006. (Because these districts
committed to adopting drug testing programs and they were clustered in mostly southern States,
the study results cannot be generalized to all high schools nationally.) About half of the schools
were randomly assigned to begin implementing drug testing immediately (treatment schools),
and the other half were assigned to implement drug testing only at the conclusion of the 1-year
experimental period (control schools). Data collection included student surveys of reported drug
use, interviews with staff at grantee schools, and school records.
Results of the evaluation include the following:
   Students involved in extracurricular activities and subject to in-school drug testing
reported less substance use than comparable students in high schools without drug
testing, but for certain of these drugs the differences were not statistically significant.
   There was no statistically significant evidence of any ―spillover effects‖ to students who
were not subject to testing – the percentage of nonparticipating students who reported
using substances in the past month was effectively the same at both treatment and
The Department also conducted a longitudinal impact evaluation of a school-based violence
prevention program. Specifically, the evaluation assessed the overall impact of combining
―Responding in Peaceful and Positive Ways,‖ a curriculum-based (instructional) program, with
―Best Behavior,‖ a whole-school program that aims to increase the clarity, fairness, and
consistency of school enforcement policies and to improve teachers&#39; classroom management
skills. Approximately 40 middle schools took part in this evaluation, half of which were randomly
assigned to receive the hybrid program, which was implemented over 3 consecutive school
years (2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09). Within each middle school, students were sampled
and their violent and aggressive behaviors measured. Student and teacher surveys,
observations of intervention activities, interviews with school administrators, and school records
were used to assess student outcomes in both treatment and control schools as well as to
assess the quality of program implementation.
After 1 year of implementation, there were no statistically significant differences in on how often
students reported that they were victimized by or committed violence against their peers. In
addition, there were no statistically significant impacts of the program on a number of other
outcomes such as how often students&#39; reported positive behavior toward their peers or on their
perceptions of school safety. Findings from the evaluation after the second and third years of
implementation are expected to become available later in 2011.
(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title V, Part D, Subpart 2)
2011 CR                    2012            Change
$55,0002                    0           -$55,000
The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. The program is proposed for consolidation in FY 2012
under new legislation.
The Elementary and Secondary School Counseling (ESSC) program provides grants to local
educational agencies (LEAs) to establish or expand elementary school and secondary school
counseling programs. In awarding grants, the Department must give consideration to
applications that demonstrate the greatest need for services, propose the most promising and
innovative approaches, and show the greatest potential for replication and dissemination. The
Department awards grants for up to 3 years that may not exceed $400,000 and must be used to
supplement, not supplant, existing counseling and mental health services. The statute requires
that any amount appropriated up to $40 million for this program in any fiscal year be used for
elementary school counseling programs. If the appropriation exceeds $40 million, the
Department must use at least $40 million to support elementary school counseling programs.
2007 ...........................................   $34,650
2008 ...........................................    48,617
2009 ...........................................    52,000
2010 ...........................................    55,000
2011 CR .....................................       55,000
The Administration is not requesting separate funding for the ESSC program for fiscal year
2012. In place of this and several other, sometimes narrowly targeted, programs that address
students’ safety, health, and drug-prevention, the Administration has proposed to create,
through the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), a broader
Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students program that would increase the capacity of States,
districts, and their partners to provide the resources and supports necessary for safe, healthy,
and successful students. This new program would help schools provide conditions for learning,
including by implementing activities that reduce or prevent drug use, alcohol use, bullying,
harassment, or violence, and promote and support the physical and mental well-being of
programs that support school counseling).
The Administration recognizes the importance of and need for continued support of efforts to
address student mental health issues. The need for such efforts is clear. Recent estimates
show that more than 20 percent of American children and adolescents between the ages of
9 and 17 years experience mental health problems or addictive disorders severe enough to
impair their daily functioning and that only 25 percent of these children receive appropriate
The presence of counselors in schools provides benefits for both students and teachers by
helping to create a safe school environment, improve teacher effectiveness and classroom
management, increase academic achievement, and promote student well-being and healthy
development. In a recent review of school counseling research, Whinston and Quinby (2009)
found that students who participated in school counseling interventions tended to score on
various outcome measures about one-third of a standard deviation above those students who
did not receive interventions. These interventions were also shown to have a large effect in
reducing student disciplinary problems, enhancing problem-solving skills, and increasing career
knowledge. In terms of achievement, counseling interventions were found to have a small but
significant impact on improving students’ academic achievement. For these reasons, the
Administration’s reauthorization proposal recognizes the need for continued support of efforts to
ensure that schools provide a safe and supportive environment, which may include supporting
school counseling services. The Administration believes that school-based counseling
programs offer great promise for improving prevention, diagnosis, and access to treatment for
children and adolescents with mental health problems.
The fiscal year 2012 request for the Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students program would
include funds to pay 2012 continuation costs for ESSC grants made in previous years.
2010               2011 CR                    2012
Grant award funding (new)                             $15,038                 $18,328                           0
Grant award funding (continuations)                   $39,662                 $36,672                           0
Peer review of new award applications                   $300                        01                          0
Number of new awards                                       42                      54                           0
Number of continuation awards                             117                     107                           0
NOTE: FY 2012 continuation costs of approximately $33,687 thousand would be provided from the appropriation
for the Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students program.
The Department plans to fund new applications in FY 2011 from the FY 2010 slate.
goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data, and an assessment of the
Goal: To increase the availability of counseling programs and services in elementary
Objective: Support the hiring of qualified personnel to expand available counseling services for
Measure: The percentage of grantees closing the gap between their student/mental health professional
ratios and the student/mental health professional ratios recommended by the statute.
Year                          Target                                    Actual
2007            2008           2009       2007           2008        2009
Cohort          Cohort         Cohort     Cohort         Cohort      Cohort
2008                                                        100
2009              100                                       100            100
2010              100             100                       100             94         100
2011                              100            100
2012                                             100
Measure: The average number of referrals per grant site for disciplinary reasons in schools participating
in the Elementary and Secondary School Counseling program.
Year                       Target                                        Actual
2007        2008           2009             2007          2008           2009
Cohort      Cohort         Cohort           Cohort        Cohort         Cohort
2008           1,132                                       1,192
2009             781                                         822         1,720
2010             740       1,634                             790         1,403          1,220
2011                       1,548          1,159
2012                                      1,037
Additional information: Performance data are collected through annual grantee reports.
Because the first measure does not appear to be effective in measuring program progress, the
Department is considering whether it should be replaced.
Additionally, the Department has posted grantee-level data on its website at
www.ed.gov/programs/elseccounseling/performance.html.
(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title V, Part D, Subpart 10)
2011 CR                     2012                 Change
$79,0002                        0             -$79,000
The Physical Education program (PEP) provides grants to local educational agencies (LEAs)
and community-based organizations to pay the Federal share of the costs of initiating,
expanding, and improving physical education (PE) programs (including after-school programs)
for students in kindergarten through 12th grade, in order to help those entities make progress
toward meeting State standards for physical education. Funds may be used to provide
equipment and support to enable students to participate actively in physical education activities
and for training and education for teachers and staff. Awards are competitive, typically for
3 years, and the Federal share may not exceed 90 percent of the total program cost for the first
year of the project and 75 percent for each subsequent year. Funds must be used to
supplement, and may not supplant, other Federal, State, and local funding for PE activities.
For the fiscal year 2010 competition, the Department developed priorities and requirements that
should enhance the impact of PEP and support a broader, strategic vision for encouraging the
development of lifelong healthy habits and improving physical and nutrition education
programming and policies in schools and communities. Historically, the program has funded
projects that often focused heavily on the purchase of equipment without strong integration of
that equipment into curriculum; did not take a comprehensive approach that recognizes the
interdependency of physical, nutrition, and health education; did not use research-based
curricula; or did not take into account local wellness policies or other community efforts in
physical education and activity. The Department issued rules that address these deficiencies
by, for example, requiring that grantees include a nutrition component in their projects,
undertake a local needs assessment, update nutrition- and physical activity-related policies and
link them with local wellness policies, and update physical education and nutrition instruction
curricula and encouraging grantees to take a multi-sector, comprehensive approach by working
Funding levels for the past 5 years were:
2007 ...........................................   $72,674
2008 ...........................................    75,655
2009 ...........................................    78,000
2010 ...........................................    79,000
2011 CR .....................................       79,000
The Administration is not requesting separate funding for the Physical Education program for
fiscal year 2012. In place of this and several other, sometimes narrowly targeted, programs that
address students’ safety, health, and drug-prevention, the Administration has proposed to
create, through the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, a broader
Administration believes will support improved student academic achievement. Further, this
new program would provide increased flexibility for States and districts to design and implement
programs that support physical education).
The Administration recognizes the importance of and need for continued support of physical
education, improved nutrition, and fitness. The need for continued and improved efforts in this
area is clear. In the past 30 years, the prevalence of unhealthy body weight among children has
increased dramatically. Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
(NHANES) conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that,
between the 1976-1980 and 2003-2006 collection periods, the percentage of children who were
overweight increased from 5 percent to 12 percent for children ages 2 to 5, from 7 percent to
17 percent for ages 6 to 11, and from 5 percent to 18 percent for ages 12 to 19. This has, in
part, resulted from a lack of physical activity among youth. According to the 2007 National
Survey of Children’s Health conducted by CDC, 36 percent of children ages 6-17 were engaged
in vigorous physical activity 3 or fewer days per week.
Additionally, the Effective Teaching and Learning for a Well-Rounded Education program would
address the need to strengthen instruction and increase student achievement, across content
areas, which would include, but not be limited to, health education and physical education.
include funds to pay 2012 continuation costs for PEP grants made in previous years.
2010               2011 CR                 2012
Grant award funding (new)                             $36,864                $36,989                  0
Grant award funding (continuations)                    41,291                 41,166                  0
Peer review of new award applications                     450                    450                  0
Evaluation                                                395                    395                  0
Number of new grant awards                                 77                     77                  0
Number of continuation grant awards                       176                    150                  0
Average grant award                                      $309                   $343                  0
NOTE: FY 2012 continuation costs of approximately $51,122 thousand would be provided from the
the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in
FY 2012 and future years, and the resources and efforts invested by those served by this
As part of a multi-agency effort in the last year to improve the effectiveness of programs
supporting child health and fitness, the Department reviewed the performance measures for this
program. The Department published revised performance measures in the Notice Inviting
Applications for fiscal year 2010. These measures are: (1) the percentage of students served
by the grant who engage in 60 minutes of daily physical activity; (2) the percentage of students
served by the grant who achieve age-appropriate cardiovascular fitness levels; (3) the
percentage of students served by the grant who consume fruit two or more times per day and
vegetables three or more times per day; (4) the cost (based on the amount of the grant award)
per student who achieves the level of physical activity required to meet the physical activity
measures above (percentage of students who engage in 60 minutes of daily physical activity).
Baseline and year 1 data for these measures will be available in late 2011.
Existing grantees from cohorts first funded prior to fiscal year 2010 still report on the previous
performance measures shown on the tables that follow. The Department adopted these
standards based on input from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Objective: Support the implementation of effective physical education programs and
Measure: The percentage of elementary students served by the grant who engage in 150 minutes of
moderate to vigorous physical activity per week.
2006           2007             2008       2006           2007           2008
Cohort         Cohort           Cohort     Cohort         Cohort         Cohort
2007                                                       55
2008            55                                         69             43
2009            72             45                                         72             61
2010                           76               64
2011                                            67
Measure: The percentage of secondary students served by the grant who engage in 225 minutes of
Year                         Target                                    Actual
2008            55                                         59             55
2009            60             58                                         57             54
2010                           61               57
2011                                            59
Additional information: Data are currently available for the first 2 years of the 2006 and 2007
cohorts, while only baseline data are available for the 2008 cohort. The 2006 cohort does not
yet have 2009 data because many of grantees exercised a 1-year, no-cost extension to
complete the implementation of their projects. Grantees from both the 2006 and 2007 cohorts
reported an increase in student physical activity at both the elementary and secondary levels
and generally met their targets.
The Department established only two targets for each of the 2006, 2007, and 2008 cohorts, with
the data collected at the end of year one considered the baseline. Beginning with the 2009
cohort, grantees are conducting an additional data collection at the start of the grant in order to
establish a baseline that more accurately reflects the participants’ initial activity levels. This will
lead to three targets, corresponding to the subsequent data collections at the end of grant years
one, two, and three. Baseline data for the 2009 cohort will be available early in 2011, at which
point the Department will establish targets for 2011 through 2013. Therefore, no existing
cohorts have 2012 targets at this time.
The Department developed and is implementing the following efficiency measure that includes
the mandatory non-federal expenditures.
Measure: The cost per student who achieves the level of physical activity required to meet the physical
activity measures for the program (150 minutes of moderate to vigorous activity for elementary students and
225 minutes of moderate to vigorous activity for middle and high school students).
Year                         Target                                          Actual
2006            2007            2008            2006             2007           2008
Cohort          Cohort          Cohort          Cohort          Cohort          Cohort
2007                                                          $287
2008          $272                                             190             $191
2009           181            $181                                              168           $560
2010                           160            $532
2011                                           504
Additional information: The program has established a baseline for the 2006, 2007, and 2008
cohorts. The 2006 and 2007 cohorts showed an improvement in their second year of reporting,
decreasing the cost per successful outcome by more than 10 percent in each cohort.
(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title V, Part D, Subpart 14, Section 5542)
$1,000 2                       0               -$1,000
The Foundations for Learning program authorizes grants to local educational agencies (LEAs),
local councils, community-based organizations, and other public or nonprofit entities to enhance
young children’s development so that they are ready to begin school.
Funds may be used to provide services to children and their families that foster children’s
emotional, behavioral, and social development, and to facilitate access to and coordination with
mental health, welfare, and other social services for children and their families. In addition,
funds may be used to develop or enhance early childhood community partnerships that provide
individualized supports for eligible children and their families.
To be eligible for services, a child must be under 7 years of age and must have experienced two
or more of the following: (1) abuse, maltreatment, or neglect; (2) exposure to violence;
(3) homelessness; (4) removal from child care, Head Start, or preschool for behavioral reasons
or a risk of being so removed; (5) exposure to parental depression or other mental illness;
(6) family income that is below 200 percent of the poverty line; (7) exposure to parental
substance abuse; (8) low birth weight; or (9) cognitive deficit or developmental disability.
2007 ................................................................ $982
2008 .................................................................. 929
2009 ............................................................... 1,000
2010 ............................................................... 1,000
2011 CR ......................................................... 1,000
The Administration is not requesting separate funding for the Foundations for Learning program
for fiscal year 2012. In place of this and several other, sometimes narrowly targeted, programs
that address students’ safety, health, and drug-prevention, the Administration has proposed to
create, through the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), a
broader Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students program that would increase the capacity of
States, districts, and their partners to provide the resources and supports necessary for safe,
healthy, and successful students. This new program would help schools provide conditions for
learning, including by implementing activities that reduce or prevent drug use, alcohol use,
bullying, harassment, or violence, and promote and support the physical and mental well-being
programs that support early learning).
While, the Administration strongly supports the objective of providing high-quality early learning
programs and services that foster children’s emotional, behavioral, and social development, the
activities carried out under Foundations for Learning overlap with those of other programs that
support early learning for which funds are requested for in 2012, such as Special Education
Preschool Grants and Special Education Grants for Infants and Families. In addition, the
Administration is requesting $350 million for a proposed Early Learning Challenge Fund (ELCF)
in fiscal year 2012 to support States that are ready to take dramatic steps to improve the quality
of their early childhood programs. The ELCF would provide competitive grants to States for the
development of a statewide infrastructure of integrated high-quality early learning supports and
services for children from birth through age 5 and help improve children’s school readiness.
2010                 2011 CR    2012
Grant award funds (new)                                  $1,000                     $990         0
Peer review of new award applications                         01                     $10         0
Number of new awards                                          3                        4         0
Number of supplemental awards                                 1                        0         0
Average new award                                         $248                      $248         0
The Department funded new applications in FY 2010 from the FY 2009 slate.
The Department established the following two performance measures for the Foundations for
Learning program: (1) the percentage of eligible children served by the grant attaining
measurable gains in emotional, behavioral, and social development; and (2) the percentage of
eligible children and their families served by the grant receiving individualized support from
child-serving agencies or organizations. The final performance data for the 2008 cohort show
that approximately 83 percent of children served by the grants attained measurable gains in
emotional, behavioral, and social development, and approximately 35 percent of children and
their families served by the grants received individualized support from child-serving agencies or
organizations. These data should be viewed with caution because only two of three grantees
reported data for these measures. The Department expects to have performance data for the
2009 cohort this spring.
(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title V, Part D, Subpart 14, Section 5541)
2011 CR                            2012        Change
$5,913 2                                0   -$5,913
The Mental Health Integration in Schools program provides competitive grants to, or contracts
with, State educational agencies (SEAs), local educational agencies (LEAs), or Indian tribes for
the purpose of increasing student access to mental health services by supporting programs that
link school systems with the local mental health system.
Specifically, an SEA, LEA or Indian tribe may use funds under this program to deliver
prevention, diagnosis, and treatment services to students through collaborative efforts between
school-based systems and mental health service systems; enhance the availability of crisis
intervention services and referrals for students potentially in need of mental health services;
provide related training for school personnel and mental health professionals; provide technical
assistance and consultation to school systems, mental health agencies, and families; and
evaluate their projects supported with these funds.
2007 ............................................................. $4,910
2008 ............................................................... 4,913
2009 ............................................................... 4,913
2010 ............................................................... 5,913
2011 CR ......................................................... 5,913
The Administration is not requesting separate funding for the Mental Health Integration in
Schools program for fiscal year 2012. In place of this and several other, sometimes narrowly
targeted, programs that address students’ safety, health, and drug-prevention, the
Administration has proposed to create, through the reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA), a broader Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students program
that would increase the capacity of States, districts, and their partners to provide the resources
and supports necessary for safe, healthy, and successful students. This new program would
help schools provide conditions for learning, including by implementing activities that reduce or
prevent drug use, alcohol use, bullying, harassment, or violence, and promote and support the
Under the proposed Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students program, SEAs, high-need LEAs,
and their partners would be eligible to apply for competitive grants to develop and implement
programs that measure and improve conditions for learning based on local needs. The overall
result is that the new program would provide grantees and their partners with the resources
necessary to design and implement strategies necessary for safe, healthy, and successful
students, which the Administration believes will support improved student academic
achievement. Further, this new program would provide increased flexibility for States and
districts to design and implement strategies that best reflect the needs of their students and
communities (which may include programs that support establishing or expanding systems to
increase student access to high-quality mental health services).
The Administration remains committed to promoting efforts to address student mental health
issues. The need for such efforts is clear. The 2010 National Comorbidity Study-Adolescent
Supplement survey, conducted by the National Institutes of Mental Health, found that
approximately 20 percent of American adolescents between the ages of 13 and 18 years
experience symptoms of a diagnosable mental health or addictive disorder that impairs their
daily functioning, including their ability to learn and perform academically. Analysis of these
data confirms previous findings that a substantial proportion of youth with diagnosable mental or
emotional disorders do not receive appropriate mental health treatment. The most prevalent
mental health problems seen in children and adolescents include attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder, anxiety disorders, and conduct and disruptive disorders, as well as depression and
other mood disorders that can increase a child’s risk for academic and social problems and may
eventually result in suicide. Further, if left untreated, mental health problems can persist into
adulthood and can affect the development of relationships, family dynamics, educational
outcomes, and employment opportunities. The proposed Successful, Safe, and Healthy
Students program would provide LEAs and other eligible applicants with resources to address
these problems in a comprehensive manner.
Grant award funds (new)                           $5,738               $5,893                   0
Grant award funds (supplement)                     $155                     0                   0
Peer review of new award applications                $20                  $20                   0
Number of new awards                                  16                16-18                   0
Average award                                      $359                  $347                   0
The Department established the following performance measures for assessing the
effectiveness of the Mental Health Integration in Schools program: (1) the percentage of schools
served by the grant that have in place comprehensive ―linkage protocols‖ (describing, in detail,
the roles and responsibilities of the various partners collaborating on the project); and (2) the
percentage of school personnel served by the grant who are trained to make appropriate
The final performance data for the 2006 and 2007 cohorts show that approximately       89 and
93 percent respectively of schools served by the grants had in place comprehensive ―linkage
protocols‖ at the end of the grants and approximately 79 and 70 percent, respectively, of school
personnel served by the grants had been trained to make appropriate referrals to mental health
services. These data should be viewed with caution because only about half of the grantees
reported valid data. The Department expects to have additional performance data available in
(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part A, Subpart 2, Section 4129)
2011 CR                   2012           Change
$32,7122                  0          -$32,712
Under the Alcohol Abuse Reduction program, the Department, in consultation with the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) in the Department of
Health and Human Services, awards competitive grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) to
develop and implement innovative and effective programs to reduce alcohol abuse in secondary
schools. The Department may reserve up to 20 percent of the appropriation to enable SAMHSA
to provide alcohol abuse resources and start-up assistance to the LEAs receiving these grants.
The Department may also reserve up to 25 percent of the funds to award program grants to low-
income and rural LEAs. As a condition of funding, all grantees are required to implement one or
more strategies for reducing under-age alcohol abuse that SAMHSA has determined are
2007 ...........................................   $32,409
2008 ...........................................    32,423
2009 ...........................................    33,348
2010 ...........................................    32,712
2011 CR .....................................       32,712
The Administration is not requesting separate funding for the Alcohol Abuse Reduction program
SUPPORTING STUDENT SUCEESS
programs that support alcohol abuse prevention).
The Administration’s proposal recognizes the continuing need for efforts to reduce under-age
alcohol abuse. According to the Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Prevent and Reduce
Underage Drinking (2007),
Alcohol is the most widely used substance of abuse among America’s youth. A
higher percentage of young people between the ages of 12 and 20 use alcohol
than use tobacco or illicit drugs. The physical consequences of underage alcohol
use range from medical problems to death by alcohol poisoning, and alcohol
plays a significant role in risky sexual behavior, physical and sexual assaults,
various types of injuries, and suicide.         Underage drinking also creates
secondhand effects for others, drinkers and nondrinkers alike, including car
crashes from drunk driving, that put every child at risk.
Indeed, under-age drinking has serious social costs and often tragic personal consequences.
The Administration’s reauthorization proposal would continue the Federal focus on the problem
of under-age drinking, but in a more comprehensive and flexible manner than can be attempted
through the current portfolio of programs. The overall result is that the new program will
promote and continuously improve conditions for learning, and thereby foster students’ well-
being and improved academic performance.
The fiscal year 2012 budget request for the Successful, Safe, and Healthy Students program
includes funds to pay 2012 continuation costs for Alcohol Abuse Reduction grants made in
Grant award funding (new)                               $2,992               $24,322                  0
Grant award funding (continuations)                     27,966                 6,607                  0
Services Administration (SAMHSA)                        1,604                 1,633                  0
Peer review of new award applications                      150                   150                  0
Total budget authority                               32,712                32,712                  0
Number of new awards                                          8                   75                  0
Number of continuation awards                                85                   17                  0
Average award                                              $333                 $336                  0
NOTE: FY 2012 continuation costs of approximately $27,244 thousand would be provided from the
Goal: To help reduce alcohol abuse among secondary school students.
Objective: Support the implementation of research-based alcohol abuse prevention programs
Measure: The percentage of Alcohol Abuse Reduction grantees whose target students show a
measurable decrease in binge drinking.
Year                     Targets                                      Actual
2004      2005       2007      2008      2009      2004      2005      2007     2008       2009
Cohort    Cohort     Cohort    Cohort    Cohort    Cohort    Cohort    Cohort   Cohort     Cohort
2007      70                                                           65
2008                 75                                               59.3      61.5
2009                          76.9      61.5                                     47       50.7
2010                          49.4      53.2                                               64       57.1
2011                                     70        65
Measure: The percentage of Alcohol Abuse Reduction program grantees that show a measurable
increase in the percentage of target students who believe that alcohol abuse is harmful to their health.
Year                      Targets                                            Actual
2007      76                                                           70
2008                 80                                               59.3      69.2
2009                          86.5      69.2                                    76.5      58.6
2010                          80.3      61.5                                               60       100
2011                                     65       100
increase in the percentage of target students who disapprove of alcohol abuse.
Year                      Targets                                          Actual
2007      87                                                           71
2008                 87                                               74.1      69.2
2009                          86.5      69.2                                     47       49.3
2010                          49.4      51.8                                              58.3      100
Additional information: The source of these data are grantee annual and final performance
reports. The Department will establish targets for the 2010 and 2011 cohorts after receipt of
baseline data from grantees.
(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part B)
FY 2012 Authorization ($000s): To be determined1
2011 CR                         2012                      Change
$1,166,1662                $1,266,166                 +$100,000
The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008. Reauthorizing language is sought for FY 2012.
The 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) program enables communities to
establish or expand centers that provide additional student learning opportunities, such as
before- and after-school programs and summer school programs, and provide related services
to their families. Centers must target their services primarily to students who attend schools
eligible to operate a schoolwide program under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) (which are schools with at least a 40 percent child poverty rate) or other
schools that serve a high percentage of students from low-income families. In addition to
activities designed to help students meet State and local student academic achievement
standards, program funds may be used to provide art and music education activities,
recreational activities, telecommunications and technology education programs, expanded
library service hours, family engagement and literacy programs, and drug and violence
prevention activities that reinforce and complement the regular school day program of
Program funds are allocated by formula to States. Of the total appropriation, the Department
reserves: (1) up to 1 percent to carry out national activities; and (2) up to 1 percent for grants to
the Department of the Interior/Bureau of Indian Education and to the Outlying Areas. The
Department allocates the remaining funds to States in proportion to each State’s share of funds
in the previous fiscal year under Part A of ESEA Title I. However, no State may receive less
than one-half of 1 percent of the total amount available for States.
Each State educational agency (SEA) must award at least 95 percent of its allocation
competitively to local educational agencies (LEAs), community-based organizations, faith-based
organizations, or other public or private entities that can demonstrate experience, or the promise
of success, in providing educational and related activities. In making awards, States give
priority to applications that: (1) propose to target services to students who attend schools
identified as in need of improvement under Title I; and (2) are submitted jointly by at least one
LEA that receives funds under Part A of Title I and at least one community-based organization
or other public or private entity. States must make awards of at least $50,000 per year and for a
An SEA may reserve up to 2 percent of its allocation for administrative expenses, including the
costs of conducting its grants competition. In addition, an SEA may reserve up to 3 percent of
its allocation for: (1) monitoring of programs; (2) providing technical assistance and training; and
(3) evaluating the effectiveness of the program.
This program is forward funded. Funds become available for obligation on July 1 of the fiscal
year in which they are appropriated and remain available for 15 months through September 30
2007 ......................................................... $981,166
2008 ........................................................ 1,081,166
2009 ........................................................ 1,131,166
2010 ........................................................ 1,166,166
2011 CR .................................................. 1,166,166
The Administration requests $1.27 billion in fiscal year 2012 funding for the 21st CCLC program,
an increase of $100 million over the 2011 CR level. The 21st CCLC program is authorized by
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and is, therefore, subject to reauthorization. The
request assumes that the program will be implemented in fiscal year 2012 under reauthorized
legislation and is based on the Administration’s reauthorization proposal. Under this proposal,
the Department would make competitive grants to eligible entities (SEAs and LEAs) by
themselves or in partnership with nonprofit organizations and local governmental entities) for
projects that implement in-school and out-of-school strategies for providing students (and,
where appropriate, teachers and family members), particularly those in high-need schools, the
additional time, support, and enrichment activities needed to improve student achievement.
States that receive awards would subgrant funds to (1) high-need LEAs alone or in partnership
with one or more nonprofit organizations or local governmental entities or (2) nonprofit
The fiscal year 2012 request for the 21st CCLC program would allow local recipients to use
program funds to expand learning time by significantly increasing the number of hours in a
regular school schedule and comprehensively redesigning the school schedule for all students
in a school. The Administration’s reauthorization proposal would continue to allow funds to be
used for before- and after-school programs, summer enrichment programs, and summer school
programs, and would additionally permit States and eligible local entities to use funds to support
expanded-learning-time programs and full-service community schools. This enhanced flexibility
would allow communities to determine the best strategies for enabling their students and
teachers to get the time and support they need. The additional funding requested for fiscal year
2012 would enable the program to support the expanded menu of programs and strategies and
to provide higher-quality programming for students and their families.
All local projects would provide additional time for students, including students with the greatest
academic needs and those who are meeting State academic achievement standards, to
participate in (1) academic activities that are aligned with the instruction those students receive
during the regular school day and are targeted to their academic needs; and (2) enrichment and
other activities that complement the academic program. Projects could also provide teachers
the time they need to collaborate, plan, and engage in professional development within and
across grades and subjects. In making awards to eligible local entities, the Department or the
SEA would give priority to applications from partnerships between districts and other eligible
entities and to applicants that propose to develop and implement expanded-learning-time
programs or full-service community schools.
The Administration believes that the reauthorized 21st CCLC program would increase the
likelihood for positive student outcomes. Research suggests that programs that significantly
increase the total number of hours in a regular school schedule can lead to gains in student
academic achievement.1 Moreover, an emerging field of research suggests that particularly
high-quality after-school programs may have a positive impact on desirable student outcomes,
such as higher attendance during the regular school day and increased student academic
achievement.2 Regular participation in high-quality, enriching programs appears to be one
factor that has an impact on student outcomes, but data from the current 21st CCLC program
demonstrate that student participation rates may be a program quality concern; in 2010, States
reported that only about half of the total number of students served (about 750,000 of
1.5 million) attended programs for 30 days or more over the course of 2008 and 2009. By
lengthening the school day or year for all students, expanded-learning-time programs are able
to improve 21st CCLC program attendance by reaching beyond the students who are inclined to
regularly attend voluntary after-school programs.
Program quality should be improved by transforming the program from a formula to a
competitive grant program. Within this framework, a new emphasis on increasing the number of
instructional hours, together with support for increased attendance in high-quality before- and
after-school programs, expanded-learning-time programs, and full-service community schools,
should lead to improved results for students, including improved academic outcomes. Among
other changes, the reauthorized statute would specify that activities funded under the program
should promote a range of improved academic outcomes, and that the academic content in 21st
CCLC programs should be targeted to students’ academic needs.
At the request level, the Department would reserve a portion of the funds for national activities,
including research, data collection, technical assistance, outreach, and dissemination. These
activities would focus on the identification and promotion of effective efforts to expand learning
For example, see Frazier, Julie A.; Morrison, Frederick J. The Influence of Extended-year Schooling on Growth
of Achievement and Perceived Competence in Early Elementary School. Child Development. Vol. 69 (2), April 1998,
pp.495-517. Note that this study evaluated the impact of lengthening the school year.
For example, see Reisner, Elizabeth R.; White, Richard N.; Russell, Christina A.; Birmingham, Jennifer. 2004.
Building Quality, Scale, and Effectiveness in After-School Programs: Summary Report of the TASC Evaluation.
time, provide comprehensive services, and increase community and parental involvement. In
addition, fiscal year 2012 funds would be used to pay the 2012 continuation costs of Full-
Service Community Schools grants made (under the Fund for the Improvement of Education) in
2010          2011 CR                 2012
Amount distributed to States               $1,142,842       $1,142,842                   0
Average State award                          $21,978          $21,978                   0
Range of State awards                 $5,714-127,444   $5,714-125,773                   0
Reservation for State activities and
Administration (maximum)                    $57,142          $57,142                   0
National activities and evaluation           $11,662          $11,662                   0
Amount for Bureau of Indian Education
and the Outlying Areas                      $11,662          $11,662                   0
Amount awarded to States and
eligible local entities                           0                0         $1, 227,842
Amount for Outlying Areas and the
Bureau of Indian Education                        0                0             $12,662
National activities                                0                0             $12,662
Peer review of new award applications              0                0              $3,000
Continuation costs for the Full-Service
Community Schools program                         0                0             $10,000
2010                     2011 CR                            2012
Number of centers supported                                 9,4001                        9,4001                      10,0001
Total students served                                   1,625,0001                    1,625,0001                   1,750,0001
Students attending 30 days or more                        814,000                       814,000                      895,000
Total adult family members served                         230,000                       230,000                      250,000
Estimates are based on the number of participants and centers in operation during 2008-09 as reported by States in
2010, which are the most recent data available. For FY 2012, the estimated number of centers, students served, and the
number of those students who attend programs for 30 days or more may be higher or lower due to various factors, such as:
the implementation of programs that would expand the regular school day for all students in participating school; the award
of direct grants to local eligible entities as well as to States; and the award of 1-year planning grants (or subgrants) to local
eligible entities that intend to implement expanded-learning-time-programs or full-service community schools as part of a
Goal: To establish community learning centers that help students in high-poverty, low-
performing schools meet academic achievement standards, that offer a broad array of
additional services designed to complement the regular academic program, and that
offer families of students opportunities for educational development.
Objective: Participants in 21st Century Community Learning Center programs will demonstrate
educational and social benefits and exhibit positive behavioral changes.
Measure: The percentage of regular program participants whose mathematics grades improve from fall
Year                       Target                                         Actual
Middle and                                     Middle and
Elementary                         Total        Elementary                        Total
High School                                    High School
Math                            Math            Math                           Math
Math                                           Math
2007        47.0             47.0            47.0           41.8            39.2           41.4
2008        47.5             47.5            47.5           38.7            38.0           40.3
2009        48.0             48.0            48.0           37.0            34.2           36.6
2010        48.5             48.5            48.5
2011        48.5             48.5            48.5
2012        48.5             48.5            48.5
Measure: The percentage of regular program participants whose English grades improve from fall to
Elementary                                      Elementary
High School    Total English                   High School Total English
English                                         English
English                                        English
2007        47.0             47.0            47.0           44.2            40.3        43.2
2008        47.5             47.5            47.5           40.6            39.2        41.8
2009        48.0             48.0            48.0           39.1            35.3        38.2
Additional information: According to data States submitted to the Department, performance
in both subjects decreased in 2009, for the second consecutive year, and the program did not
meet the targets for both groups and for participants as a whole. A regular participant is defined
as a student who attends the program for 30 days or more during the course of the school year.
To report data by grade span for this measure, the data system sorts program performance data
by analyzing participant demographic information at the center level (as opposed to the
individual student level). For this reason, programs that serve youth of all ages are not included
in the columns disaggregated by participant age. The methodology used to report for this
measure, therefore, partially explains why figures for ―Total English‖ are, in some years, higher
than those figures disaggregated by grade level.
Measure: The percentage of regular program participants who improve from not proficient to
proficient or above on State assessments.
Year                        Target                                  Actual
Elementary        Middle and High         Elementary         Middle and High
Reading           School Math             Reading            School Math
2007              24.0                 14.0                 22.4                  17.2
2008              24.0                 16.0                 22.8                  15.9
2009              26.0                 16.0                 25.6                  16.9
2010              35.0                 20.0
2011              40.0                 25.0
2012              40.0                 25.0
Additional information: In 2009, 25.6 percent of regular elementary school-aged participants
improved from not proficient to proficient or above on State assessments in reading, while
16.9 percent of regular participants who were in middle or high school improved from not
proficient to proficient or above on State assessments in math. These data represent
43,196 regular elementary school-aged attendees and 50,332 middle- and high-school-aged
attendees. Targets for 2007 through 2010 were set based on actual performance in 2006. The
program made progress in 2009 but did not meet the target of 26 percent for elementary school
reading. Performance increased slightly for middle or high school math, and the program
exceeded the target of 16 percent. The Department calculates data for this measure by dividing
the number of regular participants who scored proficient or better in spring of the reporting year
(but were not proficient in the previous year) by the total number of current-year regular
participants who scored below proficient the previous spring. For a regular participant to be
included in the data for this measure, the center has to have data on the student’s prior-year
and current-year State assessment results.
Measure: The percentage of students with teacher-reported improvements in student behavior.
Year                      Target                                         Actual
Elementary                       Overall      Elementary                          Overall
2007         75              75              75             68.2           68.8              70.7
2008         75              75              75             70.4           68.5              72.5
2009         75              75              75             68.7           67.6              68.6
2010         75              75              75
2011         75              75              75
2012         75              75              75
Additional information: According to data that grantees submitted to the 21st CCLC Profile and
Performance Information Collection System (PPICS), program performance in the area of
student behavior decreased slightly for all three categories of students for this measure, and the
program did not meet the 2009 targets. As with the measures for reading and math grades and
proficiency, to report data by grade span for this measure the data system sorts program
performance data by analyzing participant demographic information at the center level (as
opposed to the individual student level). For this reason, programs that serve youth of all ages
are not included in the columns disaggregated by grade level. The methodology used to report
for this measure, therefore, partially explains why the 2007 and 2008 figures for ―Overall‖ are
higher than those figures disaggregated by grade level.
The Department has developed three operational efficiency measures for the 21st CCLC
Measure: The percentage of SEAs that submit complete data on 21st Century Community Centers
program performance measures by the deadline.
Year                           Target                           Actual
2008                                                             80
2009                             80                              80
2010                             85                              86
2011                             90
2012                             95
Additional information: States took an average of 86 days to submit complete data on
performance measures, exceeding the target.
Measure: The average number of days it takes the Department to submit a final monitoring report to
an SEA after the conclusion of a site visit.
Year                                Target                                  Actual
2008                                                                         55
2009                                   45                                    60
2010                                   40                                    45
2011                                   35
2012                                   35
Additional information: The Department took an average of 45 days to submit a final monitoring
report to an SEA after the conclusion of a site visit, and thus did not meet the target.
Measure: The average number of weeks a State takes to resolve compliance findings in a monitoring
Year                         Target                             Actual
2009                                                               5
2010                            4                                  4
2011                            4
2012                            4
Additional information: This measure tracks States’ timeliness in responding to the
Department’s fiscal management monitoring findings that require States to take corrective
action within 30 days. Examples of such fiscal management findings include: drawing down
funds in a manner that is not consistent with State and Federal policies; awarding funds for
periods other than between 3 and 5 years (the subgrant length required by the statute); and
improperly limiting entities eligible for subgrants. States took an average of 4 weeks to resolve
compliance findings in 2010, meeting the target.
In 2003, the Department’s Institute of Education Sciences began a rigorous study that
developed and tested the effectiveness of two after-school interventions (one each in math and
reading) that were adapted from materials from existing school-day curricula that are based on
sound theory or that have scientific evidence of effectiveness. The final report for this study,
The Evaluation of Enhanced Academic Instruction in After-School Programs, was released in
September 2009. The evaluation found a statistically significant difference in student
achievement between students in the math after-school program and those in the regular after-
school activities after 1 year of enhanced instruction and no additional achievement benefit
beyond the 1-year impact after 2 years of the program. In study sites implementing the reading
program, there was no statistically significant difference in reading achievement between
students in the reading after-school program and those in the regular after-school activities after
1 year of the program; after 2 years of the program, there was a statistically significant negative
impact on reading achievement. It is important to note that the sample of centers was not
nationally representative and that findings from this study cannot, therefore, be generalized to
the 21st CCLC program.
In addition, the Department’s Policy and Program Studies Service analyzed data from a
nationally representative sample of 21st CCLC programs to evaluate State and local program
implementation. The resulting report, 21st Century Community Learning Center: Descriptive
Study of Program Practices, was released in July 2010. The evaluation focused on how, and to
what extent, funds support high-quality programs that emphasize academic content, as well as
staffing patterns and other features of after-school program implementation that may have an
impact on the quality of the programming offered. Centers reported that about half of their
students attended roughly 2 days a week or more. In addition, three-quarters of the centers
reported that a typical student participated in reading activities (75 percent) and mathematics
activities (81 percent) for less than 4 hours per week. About half of centers reported offering
professional development opportunities to staff through training courses or conferences.
SSS SSS_DB_ _1_