The 21st Century program is authorized to provide a wide range of activities for K-12 students and their families to: 1. provide opportunities for academic enrichment, including providing tutorial services to help students—particularly students who attend low-performing schools—meet state and local academic standards in core subjects such as reading and mathematics; 2. offer students a broad array of additional services, such as drug and violence prevention, counseling, art, music, recreation, and technology programs that are designed to reinforce and complement instruction in the regular school day; and 3. offer literacy and related educational development opportunities to families of students served. Education has established performance objectives for the 21st Century program, including objectives related to student outcomes. These objectives state that 21st Century participants will demonstrate educational and social skills and exhibit positive behavioral changes; and they will improve in outcomes such as academic performance, school attendance, and rates of disciplinary incidents and other adverse behaviors (see fig. 1). The 21st Century program is administered by state educational agencies. Education provides state agencies with annual formula grants, which in 2015 ranged from about $6 million to $132 million. The formula that determines the funding amount for a particular state is based in part on the percentage of total students from low-income families enrolled in K-12 public schools and how much that state spends per pupil on education. States, in turn, competitively award funds to sub-grantees, which may be school districts or community-based organizations, such as those that focus on youth development. By law, states must award sub-grants of a minimum $50,000 per year for periods of 3 to 5 years. Sub-grantees oversee one or more physical locations, referred to as “centers,” where grant-funded services are provided to participating students and adult family members. Centers may be located in schools, churches, community centers’ or other spaces (see fig. 2). They must provide services during non-school hours or periods when school is not in session, such as before school, after school, on weekends, or during summer vacations and school breaks. In making awards, states must give priority both to applications that propose to serve students who attend schools identified as needing improvement and that are submitted jointly by at least one school district receiving funds under Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1964 (ESEA), as amended, and at least one community- based organization or other public or private entity. In addition, states are authorized to include additional priorities in their sub-grant competitions so long as they are aligned with the statute’s requirements and priorities. Education’s Office of Academic Improvement, under the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, is responsible for overseeing states’ implementation of the 21st Century program. The Office of Academic Improvement is also responsible for providing ongoing technical assistance to states and monitoring state performance through on-site and desk monitoring visits and ongoing communications with state program officials. The Office of Academic Improvement conducts on-site monitoring for the 21st Century program for each state grantee every 3 years, or more frequently if needed. The Office of Academic Improvement is also responsible for reviewing states’ grant applications for, among other things, compliance, including reviewing certain assurances that states are required to provide under ESEA. For example, Education must review states’ assurances that they will grant awards only to eligible entities that propose to serve students who primarily attend schools with at least 40 percent of students from low-income families. In addition, states must collect plans from applicants describing how activities funded by the sub-grant will continue after 21st Century funding ends, as well as plans for how centers will address participants’ transportation needs, among other things. Education collects program data from states in order to report annually on whether 21st Century programs have met performance targets for their objectives. These data include information on sub-grantee characteristics, center activities, and participants’ demographics and outcomes. States monitor sub-grantee performance and program data submission to Education. Under ESEA, states are required to conduct ongoing program evaluations to assess the effectiveness of their 21st Century programs and activities and disseminate the findings. Education reviews state evaluations as a part of its monitoring process. Together states received more than 4,000 21st Century sub-grant applications and funded nearly 60 percent of them (about 2,400) in their most recent sub-grant competitions, according to our survey of all 50 states and the District of Columbia. States’ criteria for these competitions vary, and most states score applications on a point system based on a variety of criteria. To help determine whether applicants have the capacity to implement high-quality programs, over half of states award applicants additional points based on the quality of their program design (33 states) and use of evidence-based practices (28 states). To sustain these programs once grant funding ends, about half of the states reported awarding additional points based on the applicants’ level of support from schools and school districts (25 states) and other external organizations (23 states). (See fig. 3.) Additionally, 10 states reported in our survey that they provided additional points to applicants serving schools identified as the lowest performing or with the largest gaps in student achievement based on comparisons by race or socio-economic levels. To provide adequate time to implement successful programs, a majority of states reported that they offer sub-grantees 21st Century funding for 5 years, the maximum number of years allowed under law. Specifically, 39 states said in our survey that they provide 21st Century funding to sub- grantees for 5 years. Education’s 2003 program guidance states that research suggests it takes approximately 5 years of continual revision and improvement for a community to fully implement a successful 21st Century program. Further, existing 21st Century sub-grantees are also eligible to re-apply for funding outside the competition period if their grant is close to expiring. Of the applicants that received an award in the most recent competition, about 45 percent (nearly 1,100) had previously received a 21st Century grant award. States have provided different levels of funding for sub-grantees and their centers. Fifteen states reported the minimum and maximum amounts sub-grantees allocated to their centers. Specifically, the amount that a sub-grantee’s center received ranged from a minimum of $100,000 to a maximum of about $660,000, with a median amount of $185,000 per center in school year 2015-2016. Officials in Idaho told us the amounts vary because each center has different needs and student numbers. They said their program’s average cost per student was $1,700 per year. They noted that they encourage centers to target students most in need of services instead of serving all students in a school, even if the school primarily serves students from low-income families. Officials in Texas told us that funding amounts to centers can vary based on other state requirements, such as a requirement to employ a full-time program director or coordinator at the sub-grantee or center level. Sub-grantees have used 21st Century funds to provide a broad array of services to K-12 students. Education’s 2014 annual report on the characteristics of 21st Century programs found that the most commonly provided activities in school year 2012-2013 were those to enrich academics, provide tutoring and homework help, and offer recreational activities. According to Education’s 2003 guidance, academic enrichment can include tutoring in core academic subjects and providing extra learning opportunities so that students can practice their academic skills through hands-on activities. The 2014 annual report also found that many centers supported building students’ academic skills in reading and math as well as in the arts, science, technology, cultural activities, and health. Further, at least two states gathered information on the time spent on specific activities as part of their state 21st Century program evaluations. In New Jersey, for example, a 2015 state evaluation examined time spent by students on specific 21st Century activities, including academic improvement/remediation, tutoring, academic enrichment, community service, and recreation. Of these, academic improvement/remediation was the activity on which students spent the most time. Oregon’s 2012 state evaluation also found centers were most likely to offer weekly activities they categorized as enrichment, homework help, or recreational. In terms of subjects targeted by the program, centers were most likely to report in the state evaluation that their centers’ weekly activities focused on reading, math, and arts or music. Officials in all 13 centers we visited in our four selected states said they offered a mix of academic support and enrichment activities. These activities generally focused on reading and math, science and technology, art and music, and fitness and nutrition. For example, centers we visited used computers and tablets to reinforce math skills or introduce new concepts, such as computer programming, for students who had limited access to technology. Officials at 7 of the 13 centers also said 21st Century activities can fill gaps in a school’s offerings such as providing music or computer instruction that schools may not have the opportunity to provide during the regular school day. (See fig. 4.) 21st Century centers serve different grade levels and use different staffing models. Education’s 2014 annual report and officials in the states we visited said that centers were primarily for elementary school students, but some also served middle and high school students. Further, Education’s report found that centers relied primarily on paid staff, but staff characteristics varied widely. For example, the report found that some centers used regular school-day teachers and non-school based staff, such as youth development workers or staff without college degrees. In the 13 centers we visited, officials told us their staff included a mix of certified teachers and paraprofessionals who work during the regular school day, as well as staff from outside the school who work in the program only part-time.