21st CCLC Annual Performance Data (MS Word)
21st Century Community Learning Centers Overview of the 21st CCLC Annual Performance Data: 2016–2017U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Elementary and Secondary Education21st Century Community Learning CentersSylvia Lyles, PhDProgram Director, Office of Academic ImprovementThis report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under contract number ED-ESE-14-C-0120. The contracting officer representative is Daryn Hedlund of the Office of Academic Improvement.This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the suggested citation is as follows:U.S. Department of Education. (2018). 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) analytic support for evaluation and program monitoring: An overview of the 21st CCLC performance data: 2016–17 (13th report). Washington, DC. Content TOC \o "1-3" INTRODUCTION PAGEREF _Toc472549143 \h 2SECTION 1: GPRA RESULTS PAGEREF _Toc472549144 \h 3A. GPRA Measures #1-3: Improvement in Mathematics Grades PAGEREF _Toc472549145 \h 3B. GPRA Measures #4-6: Improvement in English Grades PAGEREF _Toc472549147 \h 5C. GPRA Measures #7-8: Improvement on Reading and Mathematics State Assessments…. PAGEREF _Toc472549149 \h 6D. GPRA Measures #9-11: Improvement on Homework Completion and Class Participation PAGEREF _Toc472549151 \h 8E. GPRA Measures #12-14: Percentage of Improvement in Student Behavior PAGEREF _Toc472549153 \h 9SECTION 2: GRANTEE AND CENTER CHARACTERISTICS PAGEREF _Toc472549156 \h 12 A. Center Type PAGEREF _Toc472549157 \h 12B. People Served PAGEREF _Toc472549159 \h 12C. Activity Participation PAGEREF _Toc472549163 \h 13D. Staffing Type PAGEREF _Toc472549168 \h 15E. Attendees Served per Demographic PAGEREF _Toc472549170 \h 16F. Estimated Per-Student Expenditures PAGEREF _Toc472549173 \h 17CONCLUSION PAGEREF _Toc472549175 \h 20TablesTable 1. Regular Attendees % Improved in Mathematics Grades3 TOC \h \z \t "Heading 3" \c Table 2. Regular Attendees % Improved in English Grades PAGEREF _Toc492140566 \h 5Table 3. Regular Attendees % Improved on Reading/Mathematics State Assessments PAGEREF _Toc492140567 \h 6Table 4. Regular Attendees % Improved Homework Completion/Class Participation PAGEREF _Toc492140568 \h 8Table 5. Regular Attendees % Improved Student Behavior PAGEREF _Toc492140569 \h 9Table 6. The GPRA Outcomes for all 54 States/Territories PAGEREF _Toc492140570 \h 11Table 7. Grantees’ Centers Broken Down by Organization Type PAGEREF _Toc492140571 \h 12Table 8. Attendees Served based on Type PAGEREF _Toc492140572 \h 13Table 9. Total Attendees by Center Type PAGEREF _Toc492140573 \h 13Table 10. Regular Attendees by Center Type PAGEREF _Toc492140574 \h 13Table 11. Times per Week/Month of Each Activity Offered PAGEREF _Toc492140575 \h 14Table 12. Frequency of Each Activity Offered PAGEREF _Toc492140576 \h 14Table 13. Times per Week/Month of Each Academic Activity Offered PAGEREF _Toc492140577 \h 14Table 14. Frequency of Each Academic Activity Offered PAGEREF _Toc492140578 \h 15Table 15. Staffing Type per Paid and Volunteer Staff PAGEREF _Toc492140579 \h 15Table 16. Participant Demographics PAGEREF _Toc492140580 \h 16Table 17. Number of Participants per Grade Level PAGEREF _Toc492140581 \h 17Table 18. Estimated Expenditure per Regular Attendee and All Attendees PAGEREF _Toc492140582 \h 18EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe 21st Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC) program provides students in high-need communities with access to high quality afterschool programming. The CCLC program started in 1994 under the Elementary and Secondary School Act and was expanded in 2001 with the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act. CCLC funded after school programs are now present in all fifty states, as well as in the District of Columbia, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and in territory of the Bureau of Indian Education. All 21st CCLC centers provide programing with academic enrichment and youth development that are designed to support participants’ academic success. For the 2016-2017 academic school year, the United States (US) Department of Education funded 9,592 centers under the 21st CCLC program. In this Annual Performance Report (APR), data from the 21APR Data Collection System were analyzed to report on the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) performance indicators associated with the 21st CCLC program. These metrics assist the federal government in determining progress of the 21st CCLC program based on the statutory requirements. The APR has historically been completed by grantees once a year to summarize the operational elements of their program, the student population served, and the extent to which students improved in specific areas. Based on the available data, the key findings from the 2016-2017 APR are: Over 2 million people have been served by this program: academic year total student attendees (n = 1,423,709), including regular student attendees (n = 770,774)summer attendees (n = 303,013), and adults/family members (n = 286,039). Overall, there was a fairly even split between male (49.1%, n = 698,684) and female (48.7%, n = 693,467) attendees.In terms of race/ethnicity, the majority of the attendees were identified as Hispanic (38.1%, n = 543,091), with White (26.3%, n = 374,297) and Black (20.3%, n = 289,221) following. 50.0% reported a percentage of improvement in mathematics grades.49.4% reported a percentage of improvement in English grades.25.4% reported a percentage of improvement on state assessments in elementary reading and 19.1% in middle/high school mathematics.67.5% of teachers reported a percentage of improvement in homework completion and class participation.60.4% of teachers reported a percentage of improvement in student behavior.The data and performance indicate that this broad reaching program touches students’ lives in ways that will have far reaching impact. INTRODUCTIONOriginally created in 1994 through the Elementary and Secondary School Act and expanded in 2001 through No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (CCLC) program, provides students in high-need, high-poverty communities the opportunity to participate in afterschool programming. Present in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 3 territories, academic enrichment and youth development programs are designed to enhance participants’ well-being and academic success. For the 2016-2017 academic school year, the United States (US) Department of Education funded 9,592 centers under the 21st CCLC program. In this Annual Performance Report (APR), data from the 21APR Data Collection System were analyzed to report on the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) indicators associated with the 21st CCLC program. These metrics, which are described in Section 1, are the primary way the federal government determines the success and progress of the 21st CCLC program based on the statutory requirements. The APR has historically been completed by grantees once a year to summarize the operational elements of their program, the student population served, and the extent to which students improved in academic-related behaviors and achievement. This year, the data show that most funded centers were classified as school districts with community-based organizations following second. In the past year, the 21st CCLC program has served a total of more than 2 million people and employed 112,571 paid staff and 36,331 volunteer staff. Most of the paid staff were school day teachers and most of the volunteers were community members and college students. In the following report, the methodological approach taken to data analysis is highlighted before turning to the results of the GPRA analysis. The report concludes with a demographic analysis of students and staff to provide context to the GPRA analysis as well as present a holistic picture of the 21st CCLC program. Methodology:Data are entered at the state level into the 21APR Data Collection system during three data collection time periods throughout the year. The data must be certified by the State Education Agency (SEA) for the 21st CCLC program in each state. The MySQL database was queried and exported to SPSS (via Excel) and then analyzed using descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages, and averages) and reported in tabular format. As validity checks, the data were run independently by two statisticians. A third researcher, who had not previously worked with the data, conducted a final internal consistency check. As a final validity check, the data were also exported using Tableau queries and checked against the exported data. To provide a whole program understanding of the data, an aggregate statistic for each of the items analyzed is provided. Descriptive statistics throughout the report are calculated on the states/territories that provided data on the given measure. For example, if only 46 states/territories out of the total 54 provided data around staffing, then the percentages are only based on the data obtained from those 46. Incorporating missing data from the other eight into the statistical analysis would skew the findings and thus cause them to be inaccurate. This method of only using reported data preserves the statistical integrity of the reported results. This change from previous reporting further provides a more accurate representation of performance against the GPRA measure on a national level. Finally, it is important to note that each state or territory is the authoritative source of their data; the APR reports on the data provided. SECTION 1: GPRA RESULTSThe GPRA indicators are the primary means by which the US Department of Education measures the effectiveness and efficiency of the program based on the following two overall goals: Participants in 21st Century Community Learning Center programs will demonstrate educational and social benefits and exhibit positive behavioral changes.21st Century Community Learning Centers will develop afterschool activities and educational opportunities that consider the best practices identified through research findings and other data that lead to high-quality enrichment opportunities that positively affect student outcomes. To support these overall goals a series of measures are associated with the 21st CCLC project. However, it is important to note that not all states report data for each GPRA. States are afforded the choice to report performance culled from grades, state assessments, and/or teacher-reported student behavior and report based on this choice.Data for each GPRA are provided at the end of the academic school year and presented in tabular and summary form below (Section A-E). Any methodological considerations are noted following each GPRA table. A summary of the findings for each GPRA is presented in Table 6. A. GPRA Measures #1-3: Percentage of Improvement in Mathematics Grades25 out of 54 states (46.3%) reported a percentage of improvement in mathematics grades.Overall, states reported the following % improvement: 51.4% Elementary, 47.6% Middle/High School, and 50.0% for all students.Table 1. Regular Attendees % Improved in Mathematics GradesState/TerritoryMathematicsElementaryMathematicsMiddle/High SchoolMathematicsAll Students% Improved% Improved% Improved1. Alabama0.00.00.02. Alaska0.00.00.03. Arizona69.961.267.04. Arkansas0.00.00.05. Bureau of Indian Affairs100.098.098.16. California0.00.00.07. Colorado0.00.00.08. Connecticut0.00.00.09. Delaware74.572.673.810. District of Columbia64.344.655.211. Florida62.855.860.412. Georgia0.00.00.013. Hawaii0.00.00.014. Idaho0.00.00.015. Illinois0.00.00.016. Indiana0.00.00.017. Iowa0.00.00.018. Kansas69.163.768.019. Kentucky55.555.455.520. Louisiana78.976.878.321. Maine0.00.00.022. Maryland69.865.268.023. Massachusetts0.00.00.024. Michigan59.141.151.625. Minnesota0.00.00.026. Mississippi67.276.069.827. Missouri35.957.940.528. Montana31.830.631.629. Nebraska0.00.00.030. Nevada39.028.737.031. New Hampshire0.00.00.032. New Jersey0.00.00.033. New Mexico0.00.00.034. New York55.745.749.735. North Carolina0.00.20.136. North Dakota0.00.00.037. Ohio67.758.364.738. Oklahoma0.00.00.039. Oregon0.00.00.040. Pennsylvania42.944.843.841. Puerto Rico61.662.461.942. Rhode Island0.00.00.043. South Carolina71.072.471.544. South Dakota0.00.00.045. Tennessee67.370.268.346. Texas27.527.027.347. Utah0.00.00.048. Vermont0.00.00.049. Virgin Islands72.284.178.650. Virginia70.058.364.051. Washington 0.00.00.052. West Virginia0.00.00.053. Wisconsin0.00.00.054. Wyoming89.880.288.1Overall51.4%47.6%50.0%Note: Raw scores were used to calculate overall % improvement. When calculating the % improvement “Overall”, the total amounts of regular attendees with reported APR results were used in the calculations across all states/territories who reported on this measure. Zeroes do not necessarily reflect delinquency in reporting or lack of improvement; States elect to report on one, two, or three of the GPRA measures. Therefore, zeros in this table may reflect that a State is not reporting on the outcome represented. *North Carolina reported K-5 data for “needs improvement,” but reported zero students improved.B. GPRA Measures #4-6: Percentage of Improvement in English Grades25 out of 54 states (46.3%) reported a percentage of improvement in English grades.Overall, states reported the following % improvement: 50.1% Elementary, 48.1% Middle/High School, and 49.4% for all students.Table 2. Regular Attendees % Improved in English GradesState/TerritoryEnglishElementaryEnglishMiddle/High SchoolEnglishAll Students% Improved% Improved% Improved1. Alabama0.00.00.02. Alaska0.00.00.03. Arizona67.363.566.14. Arkansas0.00.00.05. Bureau of Indian Affairs0.595.792.06. California0.00.00.07. Colorado0.00.00.08. Connecticut0.00.00.09. Delaware76.668.773.810. District of Columbia57.949.253.811. Florida57.159.658.012. Georgia0.00.00.013. Hawaii0.00.00.014. Idaho0.00.00.015. Illinois0.00.00.016. Indiana0.00.00.017. Iowa0.00.00.018. Kansas69.266.168.619. Kentucky54.556.555.020. Louisiana78.078.378.121. Maine0.00.00.022. Maryland71.567.369.923. Massachusetts0.00.00.024. Michigan55.642.950.525. Minnesota0.00.00.026. Mississippi68.172.869.527. Missouri38.452.641.328. Montana35.536.435.729. Nebraska0.00.00.030. Nevada33.626.832.331. New Hampshire0.00.00.032. New Jersey0.00.00.033. New Mexico0.00.00.034. New York56.247.951.435. North Carolina0.00.30.136. North Dakota0.00.00.037. Ohio66.662.165.238. Oklahoma0.00.00.039. Oregon0.00.00.040. Pennsylvania42.243.642.841. Puerto Rico58.062.759.542. Rhode Island0.00.00.043. South Carolina62.167.063.744. South Dakota0.00.00.045. Tennessee67.869.768.446. Texas27.926.727.447. Utah0.00.00.048. Vermont0.00.00.049. Virgin Islands86.672.680.750. Virginia65.258.261.851. Washington 0.00.00.052. West Virginia0.00.00.053. Wisconsin0.00.00.054. Wyoming86.878.585.5Overall50.1%48.1%49.4%Note: Raw scores were used to calculate overall % improvement. When calculating the % improvement “Overall”, the total amounts of regular attendees with reported APR results were used in the calculations across all states/territories. Zeroes do not necessarily reflect delinquency in reporting or lack of improvement; States elect to report on one, two, or three of the GPRA measures. Therefore, zeros in this table may reflect that a State is not reporting on the outcome represented. *North Carolina reported K-5 data for “needs improvement,” but reported zero students improved. C. GPRA Measures #7-8: Percentage of Improvement on Reading and Mathematics State Assessments25 out of 54 states/territories (46.3%) reported a percentage of improvement from not proficient to proficient or above on the Elementary reading state assessment. 24 out of 54 states/territories (44.4%) reported a percentage of improvement from not proficient to proficient or above on the Middle/High School mathematics state assessment. Overall, the states/territories reported the following % improvement: 25.4% Elementary Reading and 19.1% Middle/High School Mathematics Assessment. Table 3. Regular Attendees % Improved on Reading/Mathematics State AssessmentsState/TerritoryReadingElementaryMathematicsMiddle/High School% Improved% Improved1. Alabama0.00.02. Alaska0.00.03. Arizona0.00.04. Arkansas19.417.05. Bureau of Indian Affairs14.45.86. California13.98.47. Colorado0.00.08. Connecticut0.00.09. Delaware0.00.010. District of Columbia31.920.111. Florida0.00.012. Georgia29.230.013. Hawaii0.00.014. Idaho21.38.415. Illinois8.615.516. Indiana0.00.017. Iowa29.436.418. Kansas47.627.419. Kentucky0.00.020. Louisiana0.00.021. Maine0.00.022. Maryland35.029.223. Massachusetts8.04.324. Michigan0.00.025. Minnesota0.00.026. Mississippi0.00.027. Missouri0.00.028. Montana14.213.029. Nebraska0.00.030. Nevada0.00.031. New Hampshire0.00.032. New Jersey0.00.033. New Mexico0.00.034. New York16.422.535. North Carolina0.00.036. North Dakota25.910.737. Ohio54.843.838. Oklahoma0.00.039. Oregon0.00.040. Pennsylvania16.810.041. Puerto Rico0.00.042. Rhode Island15.13.943. South Carolina50.00.044. South Dakota27.614.145. Tennessee0.00.046. Texas30.441.747. Utah34.029.048. Vermont19.216.149. Virgin Islands32.342.050. Virginia53.054.851. Washington 21.911.352. West Virginia0.00.053. Wisconsin0.00.054. Wyoming0.00.0Overall25.4%19.1%Note: Raw scores were used to calculate overall % improvement. When calculating the % improvement “Overall”, the total amounts of regular attendees with reported APR results were used in the calculations across all states/territories. Zeroes do not necessarily reflect delinquency in reporting or lack of improvement; States elect to report on one, two, or three of the GPRA measures. Therefore, zeros in this table may reflect that a State is not reporting on the outcome represented. D. GPRA Measures #9-11: Percentage of Improvement on Homework Completion and Class Participation40 out of 54 states (74.1%) reported data on homework completion/class participation.Overall, the states reported the following % improvement in homework completion/class participation: 68.1% Elementary, 66.3% Middle/High School, and 67.5% for all students.Table 4. Regular Attendees % Improved Homework Completion/Class Participation State/TerritoryHW/CPElementaryHW/CPMiddle/High SchoolHW/CPAll Students% Improved% Improved% Improved1. Alabama92.092.292.12. Alaska54.859.455.83. Arizona77.171.675.34. Arkansas0.00.00.05. Bureau of Indian Affairs76.075.675.86. California0.00.00.07. Colorado83.082.082.78. Connecticut36.947.139.99. Delaware0.00.00.010. District of Columbia65.246.559.211. Florida69.969.969.912. Georgia76.476.076.313. Hawaii84.074.278.814. Idaho0.00.00.015. Illinois72.671.372.116. Indiana84.178.082.617. Iowa75.777.776.118. Kansas65.263.964.919. Kentucky62.962.562.820. Louisiana78.380.178.821. Maine29.040.532.322. Maryland61.288.469.623. Massachusetts0.00.00.024. Michigan48.049.548.625. Minnesota64.666.765.926. Mississippi77.878.578.027. Missouri0.00.00.028. Montana66.966.266.829. Nebraska63.966.764.630. Nevada74.869.773.931. New Hampshire37.532.936.632. New Jersey47.560.754.833. New Mexico88.886.088.334. New York0.00.00.035. North Carolina65.568.366.336. North Dakota0.00.00.037. Ohio0.00.00.038. Oklahoma0.00.00.039. Oregon70.771.070.840. Pennsylvania49.949.149.541. Puerto Rico86.684.286.042. Rhode Island35.335.835.543. South Carolina66.467.566.744. South Dakota0.00.00.045. Tennessee63.458.161.646. Texas0.00.00.047. Utah68.568.268.448. Vermont0.00.00.049. Virgin Islands93.997.895.050. Virginia76.470.273.751. Washington 0.00.00.052. West Virginia64.453.061.653. Wisconsin56.851.655.554. Wyoming59.362.959.9Overall68.1%66.3%67.5%Note: Raw scores were used to calculate overall % improvement. When calculating the % improvement “Overall”, the total amounts of regular attendees with reported APR results were used in the calculations across all states/territories. Zeroes do not necessarily reflect delinquency in reporting or lack of improvement; States elect to report on one, two, or three of the GPRA measures. Therefore, zeros in this table may reflect that a State is not reporting on the outcome represented. E. GPRA Measures #12-14: Percentage of Improvement in Student Behavior40 out of 54 states (74.1%) reported data on student behavior.Overall, the states reported the following % improvement: 61.2% Elementary, 58.8% Middle/High School, and 60.4% for all students.Table 5. Regular Attendees % Improved Student BehaviorState/TerritoryStudent BehaviorElementaryStudent BehaviorMiddle/High SchoolStudent BehaviorAll Students% Improved% Improved% Improved1. Alabama93.393.093.22. Alaska59.050.057.13. Arizona68.565.567.54. Arkansas0.00.00.05. Bureau of Indian Affairs73.468.371.46. California0.00.00.07. Colorado88.683.087.18. Connecticut41.543.542.19. Delaware0.00.00.010. District of Columbia56.738.951.011. Florida68.367.868.112. Georgia47.652.449.213. Hawaii79.970.374.814. Idaho0.00.00.015. Illinois62.561.762.216. Indiana86.781.085.317. Iowa77.473.476.618. Kansas58.045.455.419. Kentucky41.138.740.320. Louisiana77.480.778.321. Maine37.337.437.322. Maryland54.474.160.523. Massachusetts0.00.00.024. Michigan46.346.246.325. Minnesota61.059.660.126. Mississippi38.355.042.527. Missouri0.00.00.028. Montana64.065.864.329. Nebraska59.459.159.330. Nevada41.241.741.331. New Hampshire30.819.228.632. New Jersey38.351.045.333. New Mexico93.090.392.534. New York0.00.00.035. North Carolina52.458.454.136. North Dakota0.00.00.037. Ohio0.00.00.038. Oklahoma0.00.00.039. Oregon72.260.668.440. Pennsylvania37.037.837.441. Puerto Rico79.281.479.842. Rhode Island28.333.229.943. South Carolina82.881.182.444. South Dakota0.00.00.045. Tennessee52.447.050.646. Texas0.00.00.047. Utah54.457.655.348. Vermont0.00.00.049. Virgin Islands89.591.189.950. Virginia63.462.062.851. Washington 0.00.00.052. West Virginia60.356.759.453. Wisconsin58.656.258.054. Wyoming55.460.456.2Overall61.2%58.8%60.4%Note: Raw scores were used to calculate overall % improvement. When calculating the % improvement “Overall”, the total amounts of regular attendees with reported APR results were used in the calculations across all states/territories. Zeroes do not necessarily reflect delinquency in reporting or lack of improvement; States elect to report on one, two, or three of the GPRA measures. Therefore, zeros in this table may reflect that a State is not reporting on the outcome represented. Table 6. The GPRA Outcomes for all 54 States/TerritoriesProgram GPRA Measures2016-20171. The percentage of elementary 21st Century regular program participants whose mathematics grades improved from fall to spring.51.4%2. The percentage of middle/high school 21st Century regular program participants whose mathematics grades improved from fall to spring.47.6%3. The percentage of all 21st Century regular program participants whose mathematics grades improved from fall to spring.50.0%4. The percentage of elementary 21st Century regular program participants whose English grades improved from fall to spring.50.1%5. The percentage of middle/high school 21st Century regular program participants whose English grades improved from fall to spring.48.1%6. The percentage of all 21st Century regular program participants whose English grades improved from fall to spring.49.4%7. The percentage of elementary 21st Century regular program participants who improve from not proficient to proficient or above in reading on state assessments.25.4%8. The percentage of middle/high school 21st Century regular program participants who improve from not proficient to proficient or above in mathematics on state assessments.19.1%9. The percentage of elementary 21st Century regular program participants with teacher-reported improvement in homework completion and class participation.68.1%10. The percentage of middle/high school 21st Century program participants with teacher-reported improvement in homework completion and class participation.66.3%11. The percentage of all 21st Century regular program participants with teacher-reported improvement in homework completion and class participation.67.5%12. The percentage of elementary 21st Century participants with teacher-reported improvements in student behavior.61.2%13. The percentage of middle/high school 21st Century participants with teacher-reported improvements in student behavior.58.8%14. The percentage of all 21st Century participants with teacher-reported improvements in student behavior.60.4%SECTION 2: GRANTEE AND CENTER CHARACTERISTICS A. Center TypeTable 7 displays the results of the grantees’ centers for all 54 states/territories. Of the 9,592 centers listed, 82.3% were classified as school districts (n = 7,892) and 10.0% as community-based organizations (n = 959). Table 7. Grantees’ Centers Broken Down by Organization Type Center TypeAll 54 States/Territories NAll 54 States/Territories %Charter School3864.0College/University30 0.3Community Based Organization95910.0Faith Based Organization1151.2Public School Districts7,89282.3Other2102.2Total9,592100.0%Note: The category Other is a combination of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Health-Based Organization, Library, Museum, Park/Recreation District, Other Unit of City or County Government, Private School, Regional/Intermediate Education Agency, and Other.B. People ServedDuring SY 16-17 over 2 million people have been served by the 21st CCLC program. The total number of attendees served by the program is calculated by adding the total number of student attendees, which includes the number of regular student attendees, to the number of summer attendees and adults/family members served. Table 8 displays the amount of people served by the program per classification: total student attendees (n = 1,423,709) including regular student attendees (n = 770,774),summer attendees (n = 303,013), andadults/family members (n = 286,039). Tables 9 and 10 provide a look at attendance based on center type. The majority of regular attendees attended programs provided by public school districts (84.2%, n = 649,346).Table 8. Attendees Served based on TypeAttendees ServedTotal NTotal % Regular Student Attendees770,77438.3 Non-regular Student Attendees652,93532.4Total Student Attendees (including regular students)1,423,70970.7Summer Attendees303,01315.1Adults/Family Members286,03914.2Total2,012,761100.0%Note: Total amounts were calculated by adding the total number of attendees to the number of summer attendees and adults/family members served. Table 9. Total Attendees by Center TypeCenter TypeAll 54 States/TerritoriesNAll 54 States/Territories%Charter School85,6726.0College/University3,3720.2Community Based Organization85,3736.0Faith Based Organization8,6330.6Public School Districts1,222,83285.9Other17,8271.3Total1,423,709100.0%Note: The category Other is a combination of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Health-Based Organization, Library, Museum, Park/Recreation District, Other Unit of City or County Government, Private School, Regional/Intermediate Education Agency, and Other. Table 10. Regular Attendees by Center TypeCenter TypeAll 54 States/TerritoriesNAll 54 States/Territories%Charter School43,6335.7College/University1,8430.2Community Based Organization58,0797.5Faith Based Organization6,5790.9Public School Districts649,34684.2Other11,2941.5Total770,774100.0%Note: The category Other is a combination of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Health-Based Organization, Library, Museum, Park/Recreation District, Other Unit of City or County Government, Private School, Regional/Intermediate Education Agency, and Other. C. Activity ParticipationProgram sites offer various types of activities throughout the academic school year. The activities held most frequently were focused on homework assistance (55,836 times/week), physical activity (51,351 times/week), literacy (39,969 times/week), and STEM (39,679 times/week). The majority of activities were offered from less than 1-hour to 1-2 hours per week with the exception of arts & music, community/service learning, physical activity, literacy, college & career readiness, homework help, and STEM activities, which were offered anywhere from less than 1-hour to 2-4 hours per week.Table 11. Times per Week/Month of Each Activity OfferedActivity Times per WeekTimes per MonthCommunity/Service Learning6,4517,164Counseling Programs3,9503,901Drug Prevention2,1252,839College & Career Readiness11,0104,680Homework Help55,8361,493Mentoring9,8065,144Physical Activity51,3515,506Tutoring33,3622,509Youth Leadership13,4718,129Table 12. Frequency of Each Activity Offered Activity Less than 1 Hour1-2 Hours2-4 HoursMore than 4 HoursCommunity/Service Learning1,3614,4411,552331Counseling Programs9951,89134144Drug Prevention1,0722,10633453College & Career Readiness8823,5141,084228Homework Help5,5316,7261,215177Mentoring1,3232.750814119Physical Activity5,2867,4451,640239Tutoring2,7595,4921,140147Youth Leadership2,1264,5071,075142Table 13. Times per Week/Month of Each Academic Activity OfferedAcademic Activity Times per WeekTimes per MonthArts & Music30,22210,830Entrepreneurship3,4752,814Literacy39,9694,785English Language Learners’ Support 8,9471,978STEM39,6798,564Truancy Prevention2,2681,142Violence Prevention3,4192,616Table 14. Frequency of Each Academic Activity OfferedAcademic Activity Less than1 Hour1-2 Hours2-4 HoursMore than 4HoursArts & Music3,1688,1191,481194Entrepreneurship5062,02044269Literacy3,2187,4771,544250English Language Learners’ Support 8401,93051868STEM2,7659,1901,983330Truancy Prevention68977322836Violence Prevention1,1931,80828237D. Staffing TypeParticipating centers employ paid and volunteer staff to assist with programming. There were a reported 112,571 paid staff and 36,331 volunteer staff. Table 15 provides the amount of paid and volunteer staff broken down by type for all 54 states/territories. Among the paid staff, the majority were school day teachers (42.9%, n = 48,275) followed by other non-teaching school staff (16.9%, n = 18,992). Community members served as the majority of volunteers (25.4%, n = 9,223) used by the centers followed by college students (20.7%, n = 7,520).Table 15. Staffing Type per Paid and Volunteer StaffStaffing TypePaid Staff NPaid Staff%Volunteer StaffNVolunteer Staff%Center Administrators9,5578.51,5014.1College Students8,4697.57,52020.7Community Members4,8234.39,22325.4High School Students3,8343.45,69115.7Parents9780.96,54018.0School Day Teachers48,27542.92,0255.6Other Non-Teaching School Staff18,99216.91,8905.2Subcontracted10,7159.57071.9Other6,9286.21,2343.4Total112,571100.0%36,331100.0%E. Attendees Served per DemographicTables 16 and 17 provide a demographic depiction of the program attendees broken down by gender, race/ethnicity, and grade level. Overall, there was a fairly even split between male (49.1%, n = 698,684) and female (48.7%, n = 693,467) attendees. In terms of race/ethnicity, the majority of the attendees were identified as Hispanic (38.1%, n = 543,091), with White (26.3%, n = 374,297) and Black (20.3%, n = 289,221) following. There was a considerably larger number of Pre-K-5 regular attendees (59.8%, n = 460,570) in comparison to 6th-12th grade regular attendees (40.2%, n = 310,204).Table 16. Participant DemographicsSpring NSpring %1. Attendance <30 Days652,93545.9 30-59 Days281,10919.7 60-89 Days189,05113.3 >90 Days300,61421.1 Total1,423,709100.0%2. Sex Male698,68449.1 Female693,46748.7 Unknown31,5582.2 Total1,423,709100.0%3. Race/Ethnicity Asian55,3493.9 Black289,22120.3 Hispanic543,09138.1 Native American46,2313.2 Pacific Islander10,6170.7 White374,29726.3 Two or More Races50,7193.6 Unknown54,1843.8 Total1,423,709100.0%4. Grade Level Pre-K – 5th 636,55944.7 6th – 12th 787,15055.3 Total1,423,709100.0%5. English Language Learners*198,66914.0%6. Free & Reduced Lunch*947,09666.5%7. Special Needs*144,52910.2%*The percentages were calculated using the total number of attendees. Table 17. Number of Participants per Grade LevelGrade LevelTotal Student Attendees NTotal Student Attendees%Total Regular Student Attendees NTotal Regular Student Attendees %N%N%Pre-K – 5th 636,55944.7460,57059.86th – 12th 787,15055.3310,20440.2Total1,423,709100.0%770,774100.0%F. Estimated Per-Student ExpendituresFor the 2016-2017 academic school year, the Department of Education awarded $1,152,275,862 to 21st Century Community Learning Center programs across 54 states/territories. Table 18 displays the total award amounts, the total of regular attendees, estimated expenditure per regular student, the total of all attendees, and the estimated expenditure total student by state/territory.Total Award for the Year was sourced from budget history tables published by the US Department of Education. Total Regular Attendees was reported by each State to the 21APR Data Collection System. Regular attendance is defined as attendance for more than 30 days during the academic year. Impact, based on the GPRA, is measured in terms of regular students.Total All Attendees was reported by each State to the 21APR Data Collection System. This number reflects the sum of all regular students and all students who attended for 30 days or less. Estimated Expenditure per Regular Attendee and Estimated Expenditure per Attendee is an estimate at best, and it does not take into account any one of a number of factors that may contribute to the actual expenditure per regular attendee overall or in any given State/Territory. This estimated expenditure does not take into account funding provided by other partners. It does not consider the 27-month time frame during which States can spread their award distribution. It does not reflect any invoices or receipts documenting actual disbursement of funds towards programming. The estimated expenditure per regular student is not a weighted average; in other words, higher attendance is not given more value than lower attendance when calculating this estimate. The dollar value estimate was calculated by dividing the total award for the year by the total regular attendees or the total all attendees. The denominator does not include summer attendees (n = 286,039) or family members served (n = 303,013). This estimated expenditure is not connected in any way to G5, the Department of Education’s grant management system.Table 18. Estimated Expenditure per Regular Attendee and All AttendeesState/TerritoryTotal Award for the YearTotal Regular AttendeesTotal All AttendeesEstimated Expenditure per Regular AttendeeEstimated Expenditure per AllAttendeesOverall$1,152,275,862770,7741,423,709$1,494.96*$809.35*1. Alabama$17,260,1118,61012,423$2,004.66$1,389.372. Alaska$5,716,6982,7564,222$2,074.27$1,354.033. Arizona$24,922,68946,393102,340$537.21$243.534. Arkansas$11,770,7217,88813,745$1,492.23$856.365. Bureau of Indian Education$8,244,9235,63313,649$1,463.68$604.076. California$132,664,805134,056335,139$989.62$395.857. Colorado$11,580,3476,27415,862$1,845.77$730.078. Connecticut$9,056,7267,5519,262$1,199.41$977.849. Delaware$5,716,6982,1742,863$2,629.58$1,996.7510. District of Columbia$5,716,6983,0674,339$1,863.94$1,317.5211. Florida$61,676,72238,14252,698$1,617.03$1,170.3812. Georgia$38,753,51420,03026,613$1,934.77$1,456.1913. Hawaii$5,716,6983,3498,738$1,706.99$654.2314. Idaho$5,716,6984,4657,044$1,280.34$811.5715. Illinois$52,512,68526,61246,009$1,973.27$1,141.3616. Indiana$20,107,30813,09420,035$1,535.61$1,003.6117. Iowa$7,163,8187,44513,337$962.23$537.1418. Kansas$8,141,8979,59716,674$848.38$488.3019. Kentucky$16,237,48413,61132,946$1,192.97$492.8520. Louisiana$21,909,5169,69015,318$2,261.04$1,430.3121. Maine$5,716,6983,7596,760$1,520.80$845.6722. Maryland$15,545,6396,9519,581$2,236.46$1,622.5523. Massachusetts$18,330,51517,23919,156$1,063.32$956.9124. Michigan$36,796,79612,72418,550$2,891.92$1,983.6525. Minnesota$11,691,96311,30621,779$1,034.14$536.8526. Mississippi$14,624,1112,3263,138$6,287.24$4,660.3327. Missouri$18,745,9469,74817,915$1,923.06$1,046.3828. Montana$5,716,6986,09714,419$937.62$396.4729. Nebraska$5,716,69813,38019,129$427.26$298.8530. Nevada$9,212,3126,44310,081$1,429.82$913.8331. New Hampshire$5,716,6984,5388,124$1,259.74$703.6832. New Jersey$26,176,38111,90014,515$2,199.70$1,803.4033. New Mexico$9,094,0167,54211,267$1,205.78$807.1434. New York$87,479,75926,18462,734$3,340.96$1,394.4635. North Carolina$32,912,08813,07618,047$2,516.98$1,823.6936. North Dakota$5,716,6984,5466,795$1,257.52$841.3137. Ohio$43,194,89612,88320,243$3,352.86$2,133.8238. Oklahoma$12,205,4588,73413,035$1,397.46$936.3639. Oregon$10,765,2409,42921,739$1,141.72$495.2040. Pennsylvania$42,265,23815,22530,386$2,776.04$1,390.9441. Puerto Rico$29,380,20111,02813,060$2,664.15$2,249.6342. Rhode Island$5,716,6984,15110,659$1,377.19$536.3343. South Carolina$17,895,67910,72013,017$1,669.37$1,374.7944. South Dakota$5,716,6984,64812,183$1,229.93$469.2445. Tennessee$22,420,01129,99845,652$747.38$491.1146. Texas$103,166,33070,487107187$1,463.62$962.4947. Utah$6,946,19410,18421,632$682.07$321.1148. Vermont$5,716,6985,53911,579$1,032.08$493.7149. Virgin Islands$691,3999281,251$745.04$552.6850. Virginia$19,244,2528,92917,248$2,155.25$1,115.7451. Washington $18,057,6899,83016,213$1,837.00$1,113.7852. West Virginia$6,972,2115,45512,054$1,278.13$578.4153. Wisconsin$16,424,50019,92533,278$824.32$493.5554. Wyoming$5,716,6984,4858,047$1,274.63$710.41Note. Funding per state was obtained from directly from the Department of Education. The number of participants was dependent on the data provided by each State/territory. Estimated Expenditure per Regular Attendee and Estimated Expenditure per Attendee is an estimate at best, and it does not take into account any one of a number of factors that may contribute to the actual expenditure per regular attendee overall or in any given State/Territory. *Average funding per attendee across all 54 states/territories. CONCLUSIONFor the 2016-2017 academic school year, 9,592 centers received federal funding to implement the 21st CCLC grant. The majority of these were classified as school districts with community-based organizations following second. During SY 16-17 this program served over 2 million student and family member participants and employed 112,571 paid staff and 36,331 volunteer staff. The majority of the paid staff was school day teachers and most of the volunteers were reported to be community members and college students. The purpose of the 21st CCLC program is to 1) provide opportunities for academic enrichment; 2) offer students a broad array of additional services, programs, and activities; and 3) offer families of students served by community learning centers opportunities for active and meaningful engagement in their child’s education. Over the past year this program has resulted in over 2 million low-income students and family members having a safe place to receive academic enrichment. The students who participate in the 21st CCLC program are among the most at risk. The performance on the GPRA measures indicate that many participants are showing improved behavior and homework completion as well as, in some cases, movement in mathematics or English proficiency. The data in this annual performance report will inform continuous program improvement, including proficiency on tests, English-language, proficiency, and graduation rates, through monitoring and technical assistance. ................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- 2019 20 cspp california state preschool program child
- the first 100 days 16 weeks —superintendent entry plan
- va nage master agreement
- tl253 ability to calculate employee has worked standard
- 21st cclc annual performance data ms word
- sca paid time off
- calculating percentages for time spent during day week
- sample performance improvement period notice
- cr 1 credentialing policies
- school year dates 2020 2021 staff
Related searches
- annual performance review examples
- annual performance reviews sample
- annual performance review comments
- annual performance review sample comm
- annual performance review sample forms
- annual performance reviews examples
- annual performance review template
- annual performance evaluation sample
- annual performance review sample comments
- annual performance self evaluation com
- annual performance review word document
- ms word annual report template