21st CCLC Annual Performance Data 14-15 (MS Word)



21st Century Community Learning Centers Overview of the 21st CCLC Annual Performance Data: 2014–2015U.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. (2016). 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) overview of the 21st CCLC performance data: 2014–2015 (11th report). Washington, DC. Content TOC \o "1-3" Tables PAGEREF _Toc472694784 \h 4INTRODUCTION PAGEREF _Toc472694785 \h 6SECTION 1:? GPRA RESULTS PAGEREF _Toc472694786 \h 8A. GPRA Measures #1-3: Percentage of Improvement in Mathematics Grades PAGEREF _Toc472694787 \h 10B. GPRA Measures #4-6: Percentage of Improvement in English Grades PAGEREF _Toc472694789 \h 11C. GPRA Measures #7-8: Percentage of Improvement on Reading and Mathematics State Assessments PAGEREF _Toc472694791 \h 13D. GPRA Measures #9-11: Percentage of Improvement on Homework Completion and Class Participation PAGEREF _Toc472694793 \h 15E. GPRA Measures #12-14: Percentage of Improvement in Student Behavior PAGEREF _Toc472694795 \h 17SECTION 2: GRANTEE AND CENTER CHARACTERISTICS PAGEREF _Toc472694798 \h 19A. Center Type PAGEREF _Toc472694799 \h 19B. People Served PAGEREF _Toc472694801 \h 19C. Activity Participation PAGEREF _Toc472694805 \h 20D. Staffing Type PAGEREF _Toc472694810 \h 22E. Attendees Served per Demographic PAGEREF _Toc472694812 \h 23F. Estimated Per-Student Expenditures PAGEREF _Toc472694815 \h 25CONCLUSION PAGEREF _Toc472694817 \h 29Tables TOC \h \z \t "Heading 3" \c Table 1. The GPRA Outcomes for all 54 States/Territories PAGEREF _Toc472946159 \h 8Table 2. Regular Attendees % Improved in Mathematics Grades PAGEREF _Toc472946160 \h 10Table 3. Regular Attendees % Improved in English Grades PAGEREF _Toc472946161 \h 12Table 4. Regular Attendees % Improved on Reading/Mathematics State Assessments PAGEREF _Toc472946162 \h 13Table 5. Regular Attendees % Improved Homework Completion/Class Participation PAGEREF _Toc472946163 \h 15Table 6. Regular Attendees % Improved Student Behavior PAGEREF _Toc472946164 \h 17Table 7. Grantees’ Centers Broken Down by Organization Type PAGEREF _Toc472946165 \h 19Table 8. Attendees Served Based on Type PAGEREF _Toc472946166 \h 20Table 9. Total Attendees by Center Type PAGEREF _Toc472946167 \h 20Table 10. Regular Attendees by Center Type PAGEREF _Toc472946168 \h 20Table 11. Times per Week of Each Activity Offered PAGEREF _Toc472946169 \h 21Table 12. Frequency of Each Activity Offered PAGEREF _Toc472946170 \h 21Table 13. Times per Week of Each Academic Activity Offered PAGEREF _Toc472946171 \h 22Table 14. Frequency of Each Academic Activity Offered PAGEREF _Toc472946172 \h 22Table 15. Staffing Type per Paid and Volunteer Staff PAGEREF _Toc472946173 \h 22Table 16. Participant Demographics PAGEREF _Toc472946174 \h 23Table 17. Number of Participants per Grade Level PAGEREF _Toc472946175 \h 24Table 18. Estimated Expenditure per Regular Attendee and All Attendees PAGEREF _Toc472946176 \h 26EXECUTIVE SUMMARYOriginally 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 (Bureau of Indian Education, Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico), academic enrichment and youth development programs are designed to enhance participants’ well-being and academic success. For the 2014-2015 academic school year, the United States (US) Department of Education funded 11,512 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. 30 States reported data to assess for student improvement in mathematics and English grades across all grade levels, while an additional six and seven States respectively only reported the data for some grade levels and not others. Eighteen States/Territories did not report data on mathematics grades and 17 States/Territories did not report data on English grades.Based on the available data, the key findings from this year’s APR are: During SY14-15 over 1.8 million people have been served by this program: academic year total student attendees (n = 1,405,722), including regular student attendees (n = 752,008)summer attendees (n = 279,314), and adults/family members (n = 183,461).Overall, there was an even split between male (49.2%, n = 687,464) and female (48.2%, n = 673,800) attendees. In terms of race/ethnicity, the majority of the attendees (84.5%) were identified as Hispanic or Latino (35.9%, n = 504,661), with White (27.8%, n = 391,422) and Black or African American (20.8%, n = 292,260) following. 48.0% reported a percentage of improvement in mathematics grades.48.5% reported a percentage of improvement in English grades.28.4% reported a percentage of improvement on state assessments in elementary reading and 22.6% in middle/high school mathematics.65.2% of teachers reported a percentage of improvement in homework completion and class participation.56.8% 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 2014-2015 academic school year, the United States (US) Department of Education funded 11,512 centers under the 21st CCLC program. In this Annual Performance Report (APR), data from the 21APR Data Collection System were analyzed in order to report on the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) performance indicators associated with the 21st CCLC program. These metrics, which are further 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 the majority of 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 1.8 million people and employed 115,000 paid and 31,319 volunteer staff. The majority of the paid staff were school day teachers and most of the volunteers were reported to be 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:There are several key changes in this data collection system designed specifically to increase validity of the overall data. Most significantly the vast majority of questions asked are related directly to the participation demographics or the GPRA indicators. This results in less data entry. Likewise, data are collected for each term of the program, with a cumulative academic year total also collected in the spring. It should be noted that the collection of the cumulative year score in the spring term translates as a proxy for the academic year.Another significant change involves the calculation of the GPRA measure. In previous reports the total number of participants was used as the population from which to determine the percentage of improvement on State tests and State grades. The new system asks States to report the total number of participants but also the total number of students who needed to improve (e.g., were failing); the system uses the number of students who needed to improve to calculate the percentage of improvement. This provides a more accurate representation of performance against the GPRA measure. All GPRA calculations were made using the data entered into the 21APR system by the States, which ties attendance and outcomes together, reducing duplicative data entry and improving accuracy. Data for the participating 54 States/Territories were entered by each State and certified by the State Education Agency (SEA) for the 21st CCLC program. 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. 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.SECTION 1:? GPRA RESULTSIn addition to collecting information on the operational characteristics of 21st CCLC programs, a primary purpose of the system is to collect data that inform the GPRA indicators established for the program. 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. Certain GPRA then seek data based on these instruments. The 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. 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 1.Table 1. The GPRA Outcomes for all 54 States/TerritoriesProgram GPRA Measures2014-20151. The percentage of elementary 21st Century regular program participants whose mathematics grades improved from fall to spring.49.7%2. The percentage of middle/high school 21st Century regular program participants whose mathematics grades improved from fall to spring.45.4%3. The percentage of all 21st Century regular program participants whose mathematics grades improved from fall to spring.48.0%4. The percentage of elementary 21st Century regular program participants whose English grades improved from fall to spring.49.6%5. The percentage of middle/high school 21st Century regular program participants whose English grades improved from fall to spring.46.9%6. The percentage of all 21st Century regular program participants whose English grades improved from fall to spring.48.5%7. The percentage of elementary 21st Century regular program participants who improve from not proficient to proficient or above in reading on state assessments.28.4%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.22.6%9. The percentage of elementary 21st Century regular program participants with teacher-reported improvement in homework completion and class participation.66.2%10. The percentage of middle/high school 21st Century program participants with teacher-reported improvement in homework completion and class participation.63.1%11. The percentage of all 21st Century regular program participants with teacher-reported improvement in homework completion and class participation.65.2%12. The percentage of elementary 21st Century participants with teacher-reported improvements in student behavior.57.5%13. The percentage of middle/high school 21st Century participants with teacher-reported improvements in student behavior.55.3%14. The percentage of all 21st Century participants with teacher-reported improvements in student behavior.56.8%A. GPRA Measures #1-3: Percentage of Improvement in Mathematics Grades36 out of 54 States (66.7%) reported a percentage of improvement in mathematics grades (23 more States reported data than the previous year: 42.6% increase).Overall, States reported the following % improvement: 49.7% Elementary, 45.4% Middle/High School, and 48.0% for all students (13.0%, 9.4%, and 11.4% improvement from the previous year respectively).Table 2. Regular Attendees % Improved in Mathematics GradesState/TerritoryMathematicsElementary% ImprovedMathematicsMiddle/High School% ImprovedMathematicsAll Students% ImprovedOverall49.7%45.4%48.0%1. Alabama0.00.00.02. Alaska0.00.00.03. Arizona60.556.959.34. Arkansas0.077.377.35. Bureau of Indian Affairs0.00.00.06. California44.449.147.67. Colorado0.00.00.08. Connecticut0.00.00.09. Delaware72.186.379.310. District of Columbia74.961.769.611. Florida64.870.166.412. Georgia0.00.00.013. Hawaii61.941.451.014. Idaho0.00.00.015. Illinois60.860.660.716. Indiana0.00.00.017. Iowa75.042.648.418. Kansas87.70.086.719. Kentucky53.953.153.620. Louisiana73.567.271.621. Maine0.00.00.022. Maryland58.563.060.223. Massachusetts0.00.00.024. Michigan55.844.550.525. Minnesota0.018.318.326. Mississippi60.049.255.727. Missouri32.133.732.628. Montana0.00.00.029. Nebraska0.00.00.030. Nevada35.235.935.331. New Hampshire0.00.00.032. New Jersey76.372.674.933. New Mexico0.00.00.034. New York54.844.648.235. North Carolina13.96.09.636. North Dakota0.0100.0100.037. Ohio56.461.058.438. Oklahoma0.00.00.039. Oregon70.10.070.140. Pennsylvania45.641.743.241. Puerto Rico58.960.659.542. Rhode Island0.00.00.043. South Carolina42.277.844.444. South Dakota76.10.076.145. Tennessee69.767.969.046. Texas26.625.726.247. Utah71.473.271.848. Vermont0.00.00.049. Virgin Islands61.375.964.750. Virginia68.266.967.651. Washington 61.126.755.352. West Virginia79.072.075.653. Wisconsin59.666.759.754. Wyoming0.00.00.0Note: 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 grades, state assessments, and/or teacher-reported student behavior. Therefore, zeros in this table may reflect that a State is not reporting on the outcome represented.B. GPRA Measures #4-6: Percentage of Improvement in English Grades37 out of 54 States (68.5%) reported a percentage of improvement in English grades (24 more States reported data than the previous year: 44.4% increase).Overall, States reported the following % improvement: 49.6% Elementary, 46.9% Middle/High School, and 48.5% for all students (12.9%, 9.6%, and 11.7% improvement from the previous year respectively).Table 3. Regular Attendees % Improved in English GradesState/TerritoryEnglishElementaryEnglishMiddle/High SchoolEnglishAll Students% Improved% Improved% ImprovedOverall49.6%46.9%48.5%1. Alabama0.00.00.02. Alaska0.00.00.03. Arizona67.858.356.64. Arkansas0.050.050.05. Bureau of Indian Affairs0.00.00.06. California69.052.760.27. Colorado0.00.00.08. Connecticut0.00.00.09. Delaware70.581.075.310. District of Columbia76.169.673.611. Florida66.071.867.812. Georgia0.00.00.013. Hawaii56.436.446.214. Idaho0.00.00.015. Illinois56.183.363.016. Indiana0.00.00.017. Iowa66.128.732.118. Kansas77.70.077.619. Kentucky55.754.655.320. Louisiana74.067.172.021. Maine0.00.00.022. Maryland57.667.161.323. Massachusetts0.00.00.024. Michigan54.046.550.925. Minnesota0.017.317.326. Mississippi58.849.654.927. Missouri36.436.236.328. Montana0.00.00.029. Nebraska0.00.00.030. Nevada30.233.530.931. New Hampshire0.00.00.032. New Jersey75.075.175.033. New Mexico0.00.050.234. New York56.146.950.235. North Carolina10.29.910.136. North Dakota0.0100.0100.037. Ohio55.958.356.938. Oklahoma0.00.00.039. Oregon96.80.096.840. Pennsylvania46.442.444.041. Puerto Rico59.765.861.642. Rhode Island0.00.00.043. South Carolina33.00.033.344. South Dakota63.360.062.845. Tennessee71.568.170.346. Texas21.633.826.647. Utah77.373.776.648. Vermont0.00.00.049. Virgin Islands55.474.659.850. Virginia66.768.967.751. Washington 49.738.247.552. West Virginia78.267.673.253. Wisconsin65.140.064.554. Wyoming0.00.00.0Note: 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 grades, state assessments, and/or teacher-reported student behavior. Therefore, zeros in this table may reflect that a State is not reporting on the outcome represented.C. GPRA Measures #7-8: Percentage of Improvement on Reading and Mathematics State Assessments36 out of 54 States/Territories (66.7%) reported a percentage of improvement from not proficient to proficient or above on the Elementary reading state assessment (16 more States/Territories reported data than the previous year: 48.2% increase). 34 out of 54 States/Territories (63.0%) reported a percentage of improvement from not proficient to proficient or above on the Middle/High School mathematics state assessment (14 more States reported data than the previous year: 44.5% increase). Overall, the States/Territories reported the following % improvement: 28.4% Elementary Reading and 22.6% Middle/High School Mathematics Assessment (23.0% and 10.0% improvement from the previous year respectively).Table 4. Regular Attendees % Improved on Reading/Mathematics State AssessmentsState/TerritoryReadingElementary% ImprovedMathematicsMiddle/High School% ImprovedOverall28.4%22.6%1. Alabama0.00.02. Alaska0.00.03. Arizona14.733.74. Arkansas34.641.55. Bureau of Indian Affairs0.00.06. California0.00.07. Colorado0.00.08. Connecticut0.00.09. Delaware38.149.010. District of Columbia38.052.411. Florida87.257.812. Georgia6.519.613. Hawaii0.00.014. Idaho6.70.915. Illinois0.63.416. Indiana0.00.017. Iowa27.728.018. Kansas66.750.019. Kentucky0.00.020. Louisiana69.260.621. Maine0.00.022. Maryland9.742.923. Massachusetts21.212.424. Michigan0.00.025. Minnesota0.00.026. Mississippi34.933.127. Missouri0.00.028. Montana0.00.029. Nebraska0.00.030. Nevada0.00.031. New Hampshire0.00.032. New Jersey48.662.433. New Mexico0.00.034. New York16.213.435. North Carolina0.00.036. North Dakota2.00.037. Ohio54.728.038. Oklahoma30.829.039. Oregon0.70.040. Pennsylvania26.129.041. Puerto Rico49.427.342. Rhode Island0.00.043. South Carolina16.01.344. South Dakota10.61.645. Tennessee37.240.646. Texas41.331.347. Utah21.425.048. Vermont25.427.349. Virgin Islands0.00.050. Virginia49.255.151. Washington 6.71.652. West Virginia68.077.853. Wisconsin56.90.054. Wyoming69.350.5Note: 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 grades, state assessments, and/or teacher-reported student behavior. 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 Participation44 out of 54 States (81.5%) reported data on homework completion/class participation (23 more States reported data than the previous year: 42.6% increase).Overall, the States reported the following % improvement in homework completion/class participation: 66.2% Elementary, 63.1% Middle/High School, and 65.2% for all students (16.4%, 14.7%, and 15.8% improvement from the previous year respectively).Table 5. Regular Attendees % Improved Homework Completion/Class Participation State/TerritoryHW/CPElementary% ImprovedHW/CPMiddle/High School% ImprovedHW/CPAll Students% ImprovedOverall66.2%63.1%65.2%1. Alabama93.189.192.42. Alaska52.773.957.43. Arizona67.765.166.94. Arkansas0.0100.0100.05. Bureau of Indian Affairs0.00.00.06. California0.095.795.77. Colorado85.882.784.98. Connecticut59.263.560.49. Delaware55.468.157.710. District of Columbia75.178.275.711. Florida79.976.879.012. Georgia65.767.366.313. Hawaii69.454.761.414. Idaho100.00.0100.015. Illinois96.782.690.616. Indiana85.782.184.817. Iowa66.760.165.018. Kansas72.372.272.319. Kentucky51.844.149.220. Louisiana75.164.071.721. Maine13.511.612.922. Maryland82.8100.092.223. Massachusetts0.00.00.024. Michigan59.458.859.225. Minnesota46.563.457.826. Mississippi59.775.767.127. Missouri0.00.00.028. Montana0.00.00.029. Nebraska31.123.228.930. Nevada71.461.669.331. New Hampshire55.049.253.532. New Jersey47.256.452.333. New Mexico89.786.189.034. New York74.780.976.835. North Carolina0.00.00.036. North Dakota42.266.742.637. Ohio58.370.162.538. Oklahoma0.00.00.039. Oregon56.558.857.540. Pennsylvania55.956.055.941. Puerto Rico88.487.688.142. Rhode Island26.839.631.543. South Carolina72.065.470.344. South Dakota0.00.00.045. Tennessee77.174.976.446. Texas0.00.00.047. Utah66.663.365.848. Vermont0.00.00.049. Virgin Islands90.194.390.950. Virginia63.664.163.951. Washington 0.00.00.052. West Virginia66.149.263.053. Wisconsin51.150.851.054. Wyoming79.980.180.0Note: 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 grades, state assessments, and/or teacher-reported student behavior. 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 Behavior44 out of 54 States (81.5%) reported data on student behavior (23 more States reported data than the previous year: 42.6% increase).Overall, the States reported the following % improvement: 57.5% Elementary, 55.3% Middle/High School, and 56.8% for all students (20.3%, 20.0%, and 20.3 improvement from the previous year respectively).Table 6. Regular Attendees % Improved Student BehaviorState/TerritoryStudent BehaviorElementary% ImprovedStudent BehaviorMiddle/High School% ImprovedStudent BehaviorAll Students% ImprovedOverall57.5%55.3%56.8%1. Alabama94.790.793.92. Alaska45.748.846.43. Arizona60.856.259.34. Arkansas0.070.070.05. Bureau of Indian Affairs0.00.00.06. California0.096.796.77. Colorado91.085.189.38. Connecticut37.941.338.99. Delaware43.462.746.910. District of Columbia56.067.258.311. Florida71.470.671.212. Georgia46.951.748.813. Hawaii68.857.862.814. Idaho93.80.093.815. Illinois96.782.690.616. Indiana87.985.787.417. Iowa63.162.763.018. Kansas56.756.556.619. Kentucky46.036.342.820. Louisiana68.456.264.721. Maine21.017.119.822. Maryland82.8100.092.223. Massachusetts0.00.00.024. Michigan54.954.854.825. Minnesota50.967.361.926. Mississippi38.243.440.627. Missouri0.00.00.028. Montana0.00.00.029. Nebraska29.820.227.130. Nevada42.439.041.631. New Hampshire26.524.325.932. New Jersey34.447.741.833. New Mexico92.189.891.734. New York71.166.969.735. North Carolina0.00.00.036. North Dakota21.316.721.337. Ohio42.753.246.438. Oklahoma0.00.00.039. Oregon50.149.549.840. Pennsylvania42.449.546.841. Puerto Rico87.786.087.242. Rhode Island31.436.033.143. South Carolina43.941.843.444. South Dakota0.00.00.045. Tennessee64.164.564.346. Texas0.00.00.047. Utah58.550.856.848. Vermont0.00.00.049. Virgin Islands87.792.088.650. Virginia47.654.851.251. Washington 0.00.00.052. West Virginia67.443.963.153. Wisconsin43.641.343.054. Wyoming72.974.173.2Note: 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 grades, state assessments, and/or teacher-reported student behavior. Therefore, zeros in this table may reflect that a State is not reporting on the outcome represented.SECTION 2: GRANTEE AND CENTER CHARACTERISTICS A. Center TypeTable 7 displays the results of the grantees’ centers for all 54 States/Territories. Of the 11,512 centers, 82.1% were classified as school districts (n = 9,446) and 9.8% as community-based organizations (n = 1,125).Table 7. Grantees’ Centers Broken Down by Organization Type Center TypeAll 54 States/Territories NAll 54 States/Territories %N%Charter School4634.0College/University150.1Community Based Organization1,1259.8Faith Based Organization1601.4Public School Districts9,44682.1Other3032.6Total11,512100.0%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 14-15 a total of over 1.8 million people have been served by this 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 = 1,405,722) including regular student attendees (n = 752,008),summer attendees (n = 279,314), andadults/family members (n = 183,461). Tables 9 and 10 provide an even further examination into the amount/percentage of people served broken down by the type of center attended. The majority of regular attendees attended programs provided by school districts (84.7%, n = 636,939).Table 8. Attendees Served Based on TypeAttendees ServedTotalNTotal%Regular Student AttendeesNon-regular Student Attendees Total Student Attendees (including regular students) 752,008 653,7141,405,72240.2% 35%75.2%Summer Attendees279,31414.9%Adults/Family Members183,4619.9%Total1,868,497100%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/Territories NAll 54 States/Territories %Charter School76,1915.4College/University2,2490.2Community Based Organization79,8125.7Faith Based Organization8,7830.6Public School Districts1,218,25686.7Other20,4311.5Total1,405,722100.0%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/Territories NAll 54 States/Territories %N%Charter School40,8805.4College/University1,4170.2Community Based Organization52,3807.0Faith Based Organization6,4850.9Public School Districts 636,939 84.7 Other13,9071.8Total752,008100.0%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 OtherC. Activity ParticipationProgram sites offered various activities for attendees. Tables 11 to 14 display the results of the amount of times per week/month each of the activities are provided throughout the academic school year. The majority of times were held providing activities centered on homework assistance (27,123 times/week), physical activity (24,073 times/week), literacy (23,953 times/week), and STEM (21,771 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, literacy, and STEM activities, which were offered anywhere from less than 1-hour to 2-4 hours per week.Table 11. Times per Week of Each Activity OfferedActivity Times per WeekTimes per MonthCommunity/Service Learning2,8042,998Counseling Programs1,9541,952Drug Prevention1,0271,441College & Career Readiness4,1642,142Homework Help27,123705Mentoring3,8882,135Physical Activity24,0733,423Tutoring16,1651,534Youth Leadership5,4954,316Table 12. Frequency of Each Activity Offered Activity Less than 1 Hour1-2 Hours2-4 HoursMore than 4 HoursCommunity/Service Learning5781,910656151Counseling Programs46391915625Drug Prevention51498911533College & Career Readiness3511,373432137Homework Help2,6063,451600102Mentoring5241,15028459Physical Activity2,4263,880817119Tutoring1,2742,73365692Youth Leadership9202,16350284Table 13. Times per Week of Each Academic Activity OfferedAcademic Activity Times per WeekTimes per MonthArts & Music17,1974,970Entrepreneurship3,2861,472Literacy23,9532,288English Language Learners’ Support 7,565663STEM21,7713,727Truancy Prevention3,253623Violence Prevention1,2011,274Table 14. Frequency of Each Academic Activity OfferedAcademic Activity Less than 1 Hour1-2 Hours2-4 HoursMore than 4 HoursArts & Music1,4524,2441,004163Entrepreneurship3021,12636263Literacy1,4754,3461,160157English Language Learners’ Support 4011,03771852STEM1,0294,7641,368155Truancy Prevention30947740037Violence Prevention5217349433D. Staffing TypeParticipating centers employ paid and volunteer staff to assist with programming. There were a reported 115,000 paid staff and 31,319 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 (43.1%, n = 49,553) followed by other non-teaching school staff (14.7%, n = 17,213). College students served as the majority of volunteers (21.9%, n = 6,856) used by the centers followed by members of the community (25.2%, n = 7,886).Table 15. Staffing Type per Paid and Volunteer StaffStaffing TypePaid StaffNPaid Staff%Volunteer Staff NVolunteer Staff %Center Administrators8,7237.6%1,0613.4%College Students8,9387.8%6,85621.9%Community Members4,8374.2%7,88625.2%High School Students4,0183.5%5,30216.9%Parents9230.8%5,45617.4%School Day Teachers49,55343.1%1,5985.1%Other Non-Teaching School Staff19,00616.5%1,3504.3%Other Non-Teaching School Staff with Some or No College10,2628.9%5011.6%Other8,7407.6%1,3094.2%Total115,000100.0%31,319100.0%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 (49.2%, n = 687,464) and female (48.2%, n = 673,800) attendees. In terms of race/ethnicity, the majority of the attendees were identified as Hispanic (36.1%, n = 504,661), with White (28.0%, n = 391,422) and Black (20.9%, n = 292,260) following. There was a considerably larger amount of Pre-K-5 regular attendees (60.5%, n = 454,677) in comparison to 6th-12th grade regular attendees (39.5%, n = 297,331).Table 16. Participant Demographics DemographicN%1. Attendance<30 Days653,71446.5%30-59 Days301,05921.4%60-89 Days181,84312.9%90 Days or More269,10619.1%Total1,405,722100.0%2. SexMale687,46448.9%Female673,80047.9%Unknown44,4583.2%Total1,405,722100.0%3. Race/EthnicityAsian52,1983.7%Black292,26020.8%Hispanic504,66135.9%Native American44,2793.1%Pacific Islander6,1930.4%White391,42227.8%Two or More Races34,8662.5%Unknown79,8435.7%Total1,405,722100.0%4. Grade LevelPre-K – 5th 636,18645.3%6th – 12th 769,53654.7%Total1,405,722100.0%5. English Language Learners*185,62813.2%6. Free & Reduced Lunch*941,95267.0%7. Special Needs*137,4559.8%*The percentages were calculated using the total number of attendees.Table 17. Number of Participants per Grade LevelGrade LevelTotal Student AttendeesNTotal Student Attendees%Total Regular Student AttendeesNTotal Regular Student Attendees%Pre-K – 5th 636,18645.3%454,67760.5%6th – 12th 769,53654.7%297,33139.5%Total1,405,722100.0%752,008100.0%F. Estimated Per-Student ExpendituresFor the 2014-2015 academic school year, the Department of Education awarded $1,135,149,873 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 per 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 30 days or more 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 less than 30 days.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 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 (numerator) by the total regular attendees or the total all attendees (denominator). The denominator does not include summer attendees (n = 279,314 nationwide) or family members served (n = 183,461 nationwide). 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 AttendeesEstimated Expenditure per Regular Attendee*Total All AttendeesEstimated Expenditure per All Attendees*Overall$1,135,149,873752,008$1,509.491,405,722$807.521. Alabama$17,303,7008,332$2,076.7812,415$1,393.772. Alaska$5,631,9132,598$2,167.793,850$1,462.833. Arizona$25,045,38642,337$591.5785,546$292.774. Arkansas$11,456,8646,647$1,723.6112,671$904.185. Bureau of Indian Affairs$8,054,6581,648$4,887.543,896$2,067.426. California$124,944,905102,130$1,223.39281,502$443.857. Colorado$11,325,2685,632$2,010.8818,525$611.358. Connecticut$9,115,0458,943$1,019.2411,045$825.269. Delaware$5,631,9132,186$2,576.362,805$2,007.8110. District of Columbia$5,631,9132,611$2,156.992,978$1,891.1711. Florida$59,746,27926,026$2,295.6440,056$1,491.5712. Georgia$38,389,50918,359$2,091.0524,619$1,559.3413. Hawaii$5,631,9131,886$2,986.174,946$1,138.6814. Idaho$5,631,9133,883$1,450.407,133$789.5615. Illinois$52,083,67623,895$2,179.6944,717$1,164.7416. Indiana$20,037,95812,963$1,545.7820,533$975.8917. Iowa$7,033,2114,611$1,525.317,980$881.318. Kansas$7,774,54210,959$709.4219,881$391.0519. Kentucky$17,054,72111,719$1,455.3132,256$528.7320. Louisiana$22,386,37619,644$1,139.6032,194$695.3621. Maine$5,631,9133,701$1,521.737,277$773.9322. Maryland$15,545,7162,892$5,375.424,579$3,395.0023. Massachusetts$16,842,67412,532$1,343.9714,857$1,133.6524. Michigan$39,049,23513,708$2,848.6521,481$1,817.8525. Minnesota$11,646,54513,832$842.0024,387$477.5726. Mississippi$13,258,7211,535$8,637.602,783$4,764.1827. Missouri$17,648,80815,001$1,176.5130,025$587.8028. Montana$5,631,91313,533$416.1614,851$379.2329. Nebraska$5,631,91311,301$498.3618,216$309.1730. Nevada$8,788,7196,338$1,386.6710,959$801.9631. New Hampshire$5,631,9134,723$1,192.448,211$685.9032. New Jersey$22,245,5559,572$2,324.0211,899$1,869.5333. New Mexico$8,812,9676,201$1,421.2211,388$773.8834. New York$84,544,56232,586$2,594.5171,075$1,189.5135. North Carolina$31,709,29817,352$1,827.4124,766$1,280.3636. North Dakota$5,631,9135,965$944.167,996$704.3437. Ohio$45,173,2679,114$4,956.4718,694$2,416.4638. Oklahoma$11,603,58014,367$807.6622,234$521.8839. Oregon$12,225,5809,489$1,288.3923,511$519.9940. Pennsylvania$42,806,15317,426$2,456.4533,069$1,294.4541. Puerto Rico$30,763,35115,270$2,014.6317,755$1,732.6642. Rhode Island$5,631,9134,961$1,135.2412,316$457.2843. South Carolina$16,916,1439,186$1,841.5111,042$1,531.9844. South Dakota$5,631,9136,759$833.2517,737$317.5245. Tennessee$21,785,98530,596$712.0545,742$476.2846. Texas$106,206,51274,242$1,430.54115,321$920.9647. Utah$7,192,1449,870$728.6920,070$358.3548. Vermont$5,631,9136,544$860.6211,699$481.4049. Virgin Islands$712,615890$800.69947$752.5050. Virginia$17,822,7918,781$2,029.7020,279$878.8851. Washington $16,744,9869,532$1,756.7114,869$1,126.1752. West Virginia$7,450,7244,615$1,614.4611,011$676.6653. Wisconsin$17,054,36224,126$706.8939,695$429.6454. Wyoming$5,631,9138,459$665.7915,433$364.93*This estimated expenditure does not take into account funding provided by other partners, the 27-month time frame during which States can spread their award distribution, or any invoices or receipts documenting actual disbursement of funds. The estimated expenditure 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 and does not include summer attendees (n = 279,314 nationwide) or family members served (n = 183,461 nationwide). This estimated expenditure is not connected in any way to G5, the Department of Education’s grant management system.CONCLUSIONFor the 2014-2015 academic school year, 11,512 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 14-15 this program has served over 1.8 million student and family member participants and employed 115,000 paid and 31,319 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.In the spirit of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESSA), 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 (ESSA, Sec. 4201 (a) Purpose). Over the past year this program has resulted in over 1.8 million low-income students and family members having a safe place to receive academic enrichment. Data will be used to bolster continuous improvement through monitoring and technical assistance efforts. The 21st CCLC programs will continue to contribute positively to States’ efforts to close gaps in achievement and graduation rates as Every Student Succeeds Act is implemented. 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.

Google Online Preview   Download