21St CCLC Performance Data: 2012 13 (Msword)

21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC)

An Overview of the
21st CCLC Performance Data: 2012–13

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

21st Century Community Learning Centers

Dr. Sylvia Lyles, Program Director,
Academic Improvement and Teacher Quality

Prepared by:

Matthew Vinson

Learning Point Associates

and

Dan Diehl

Diehl Evaluation and Consulting Services, Inc.

1120 East Diehl Road, Suite 200

Naperville, IL 60563-1486

800-356-2735 630-649-6500

www.learningpt.org

3520_03/09

This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education under contract number ED 1810-0668. The contracting officer representative is Stephen Balkcom of the Academic Improvement and Teacher Quality Programs.

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 (2014). 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) analytic support for evaluation and program monitoring: An overview of the 21st CCLC performance data: 2012–13 (Tenth Report). Washington, DC:

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 4

Introduction 6

Section 1: Grantee and Center Characteristics 7

Grantee Type 7

Center Type 8

People Served 10

Activity Cluster 12

Staffing 14

Types of Employees 14

Staffing Clusters 15

Grade Level Served 17

Students and Grade Level 17

Centers and Grade Level 18

Section 2: Performance on the GPRA Indicators 20

GPRA Indicator Results for 2012-13 22

Trends in GPRA Indicator Performance 23

Summary and Conclusions 26

References 27

Appendix State Discretion in APR Reporting and Data Completeness 28

Executive Summary

For approximately thirteen years, the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) program, as reauthorized by Title IV, Part B, of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, has provided students in high-poverty communities across the nation the opportunity to participate in academic enrichment and youth development programs designed to enhance their well-being. In crafting activities and programs to serve participating students and adult family members, centers funded by the 21st CCLC program have implemented a wide spectrum of program delivery, staffing, and operational models to help students improve academically as well as socially.

In this report, data collected through the 21st CCLC Profile and Performance Information Collection System (PPICS) have been synthesized to further inform an improved understanding of the intersection of program attributes and student achievement outcomes for children who participate in 21st CCLC programs. An Annual Performance Report (APR) is completed by grantees through PPICS 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. The core purpose of the APR is to collect information on the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) performance indicators associated with the 21st CCLC program. These metrics represent the primary mechanism by which the federal government determines the success and progress of the 21st CCLC program against clearly-defined, statutorily-based requirements.

Key findings of this report include:

·  A total of 4,077 grantees representing 9,989 centers reported annual performance report data for 2012-13. These centers served a total of 1,732,567 students, with 875,226 of these students attending 30 days or more days in programs.

·  Fifty-nine percent to 65 percent of centers from 2007-08 to 2012-13 served elementary students in some capacity,19 percent to 21 percent of centers exclusively served middle school students, and six percent to 13 percent exclusively served high school students. The most recently reported three years represent the highest percentage of high school centers being served.

·  A total of 293,059 adult family members were provided with services in 2012-13. Over the last eight years, 2012-13 and 2011-12 represent the highest number of adult family members served. Specifically, 297,723 adult family members were served in 2011-12, 274,364 in 2010-11, 253,283 in 2009-10, 213,552 in 2008-09, 223,042 in 2007-08, and 210,857 in 2006-07.

·  School Districts (SD) were States’ largest subgrantee organization category, accounting for 57 percent of all subgrantees. Community Based Organizations (CBO) were the second largest subgrantee organization group accounting for 18 percent of subgrantees. Taken together, CBOs and Nationally Affiliated Nonprofit Agencies (NPAs) accounted for over 23 percent of all grantees.

·  Approximately 83 percent of all centers are in SDs, and nearly seven percent are in Community Based Organizations (CBOs) or Nationally Affiliated Non-Profit Agencies (NPAs).

·  Centers reported a total of 163,216 staff. Of these, 128,272 (79%) were identified as paid staff and 34,944 (21%) were volunteers.

·  School-day teachers account for the largest percentage of paid staff at 44 percent. Non-teaching school staff account for the second largest at approximately 13 percent. For volunteer staff, college students account for the largest percentage at 27 percent with community members second at 18 percent. Similar trends were seen in other years.

·  Of the 4,908 centers reporting individual—as opposed to aggregated—activity data, nearly a fifth of centers were classified as falling within either the Mostly Homework Help (13 percent) or Mostly Tutoring clusters (eight percent); 23 percent were classified as Mostly Recreation, 25 percent were classified as Mostly Enrichment, and approximately 31 percent were classified as Variety.

·  States have some flexibility in reporting GPRA-related data. For 2012-13, 46 percent of states provided grades data, 50 percent provided state assessment data, 81 percent provided teacher survey data, and 100 percent provided activity data.

·  Nearly all of the performance targets for the 2012-13 reporting period were not reached. For the range of indicators related to regular attendee improvement in student achievement and behaviors, the indicator showing improvement included the percentage of middle and high school 21st CCLC regular program participants who improve from not proficient to proficient or above in mathematics on state assessments.

·  Grade improvement rates for 2012-13 for both math and reading were on the whole lower than previous years’ improvement rates. It is not immediately clear why this is the case. It should be noted that across the same time frame, an increasingly higher proportion of students were reported as maintaining the highest grade possible.

Introduction

For approximately thirteen years, the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) program, as reauthorized by Title IV, Part B, of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, has provided students in high-poverty communities across the nation the opportunity to participate in academic enrichment and youth development programs designed to enhance their well-being. In crafting activities and programs to serve participating students and adult family members, the 21st CCLCs have implemented a wide spectrum of program delivery, staffing, and operational models to help students improve academically as well as socially.

In this report, data collected through the 21st CCLC Profile and Performance Information Collection System (PPICS) have been synthesized to further inform an improved understanding of the intersection of program attributes and student achievement outcomes for children who participate in 21st CCLC programs. The core purpose of the APR is to collect information on the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) performance indicators associated with the 21st CCLC program. These metrics, represent the primary mechanism by which the federal government determines the success and progress of the 21st CCLC program against statutory requirements.

In Section 1 of this report, descriptive information is provided on the domain of centers active during the 2012-13 reporting period, including activities, staffingand grade levels served. In Section 2, information on 21st CCLC program performance during the 2012-13 reporting period relative to the GPRA indicators.

Section 1: Grantee and Center Characteristics

Grantee Type

One of the hallmarks of the 21st CCLC program is that many types of entities are eligible to apply for State-administered 21st CCLC grants, including, but not limited to, school districts, charter schools, private schools, community-based organizations, nationally affiliated nonprofit organizations (e.g., Boys and Girls Clubs, YMCAs, etc.), faith-based organizations, and for-profit entities. These applicants are referred to in this report as grantees.

As shown in Table 1, School Districts (SD) were the largest grantee organization category every year from 2007-08 to 2012-13, accounting for 57 percent or more of all grantees each year. Community Based Organizations (CBO) were the second largest grantee organization group accounting for more than 15 percent of grantees each year. It should also be noted that Nationally Affiliated Non-Profit Agencies (NPAs) like Boys and Girls Clubs and YMCAs/YWCAs accounted for nearly 5 percent of grantees each year. Taken together, CBOs and NPAs accounted for 20 to 25 percent of all grantees each year.

Table 1. Grantees by Organization Type

Grantee Type[1] / No. in 2007-08 / No. in 2008-09 / No. in 2009-10 / No. in 2010-11 / No. in 2011-12 / No. in 2012-13 / Percent in 2007-08 / Percent in 2008-09 / Percent in 2009-10 / Percent in 2010-11 / Percent in 2011-12 / Percent in 2012-13
1 / 5 / 4 / 60 / 142 / 207 / 0.00% / 0.20% / 0.10% / 1.50% / 3.40% / 5.10%
CBO / 496 / 545 / 687 / 802 / 774 / 750 / 15.30% / 16.50% / 19.00% / 19.60% / 18.60% / 18.40%
COU / 50 / 55 / 60 / 71 / 67 / 71 / 1.50% / 1.70% / 1.70% / 1.70% / 1.60% / 1.70%
CS / 81 / 85 / 102 / 113 / 104 / 115 / 2.50% / 2.60% / 2.80% / 2.80% / 2.50% / 2.80%
FBO / 60 / 66 / 71 / 111 / 97 / 71 / 1.90% / 2.00% / 2.00% / 2.70% / 2.30% / 1.70%
FPC / 13 / 21 / 36 / 56 / 56 / 59 / 0.40% / 0.60% / 1.00% / 1.40% / 1.30% / 1.40%
NPA / 151 / 163 / 173 / 213 / 223 / 221 / 4.70% / 4.90% / 4.80% / 5.20% / 5.40% / 5.40%
Other / 234 / 242 / 267 / 286 / 295 / 284 / 7.20% / 7.30% / 7.40% / 7.00% / 7.10% / 7.00%
SD / 2,150 / 2,122 / 2,213 / 2,388 / 2,408 / 2,338 / 66.40% / 64.20% / 61.30% / 58.20% / 58.00% / 57.30%
Total / 3,236 / 3,304 / 3,613 / 4,100 / 4,154 / 4,077 / 100.00% / 100.00% / 100.00% / 100.00% / 100.00% / 100.00%

Center Type

While grantees are the organizations that apply for and receive funds, each grantee in turn may operate several centers, which are the physical places where student activities actually occur. Center types include school districts, charter schools, private schools, community-based organizations, nationally affiliated nonprofit organizations (e.g., Boys and Girls Clubs, YMCAs, etc.), faith-based organizations, and for-profit entities. As shown in Table 2, approximately 83 percent of centers were housed in school district buildings in 2012-13. Community-based organizations and unknown both accounted for nearly five percent of centers, making these the second most used center location type in 2012-13. All other categories of location are less than three percent. This general trend held true in previous years as well, with the exception of more centers being classified as unknown.

Table 2. Centers by Type

Center Type[2] / No. in 2007-08 / No. in 2008-09 / No. in 2009-10 / No. in 2010-11 / No. in 2011-12 / No. in 2012-13 / Percent in 2007-08 / Percent in 2008-09 / Percent in 2009-10 / Percent in 2010-11 / Percent in 2011-12 / Percent in 2012-13
Unknown / 5 / 14 / 77 / 154 / 310 / 476 / 0.10% / 0.20% / 0.80% / 1.50% / 3.00% / 4.80%
CBO / 381 / 389 / 399 / 493 / 489 / 460 / 4.20% / 4.50% / 4.40% / 4.80% / 4.80% / 4.60%
COU / 27 / 21 / 18 / 25 / 21 / 19 / 0.30% / 0.20% / 0.20% / 0.20% / 0.20% / 0.20%
CS / 105 / 118 / 151 / 175 / 171 / 184 / 1.20% / 1.40% / 1.70% / 1.70% / 1.70% / 1.80%
FBO / 125 / 128 / 117 / 171 / 148 / 118 / 1.40% / 1.50% / 1.30% / 1.70% / 1.50% / 1.20%
FPC / 8 / 6 / 9 / 26 / 24 / 17 / 0.10% / 0.10% / 0.10% / 0.30% / 0.20% / 0.20%
NPA / 200 / 170 / 200 / 219 / 226 / 219 / 2.20% / 2.00% / 2.20% / 2.10% / 2.20% / 2.20%
Other / 166 / 174 / 172 / 208 / 206 / 190 / 1.80% / 2.00% / 1.90% / 2.00% / 2.00% / 1.90%
SD / 8,036 / 7,684 / 7,998 / 8,717 / 8,623 / 8,331 / 88.80% / 88.30% / 87.50% / 85.60% / 84.50% / 83.40%
Total / 9,053 / 8,704 / 9,141 / 10,188 / 10,199 / 9,989 / 100.00% / 100.00% / 100.00% / 100.00% / 100.00% / 100.00%

In addition to the detailed categories shown above, centers can also be grouped based on two larger categories, school-based and non-school-based.

As shown in

Figure 1, approximately 90 percent of centers were housed in schools; the other centers were located at a variety of non-school-based sites.

Figure 1. Number of 21st CCLCs by School-Based Status
During the 2007–08, 2008–09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13 Reporting Periods

Table 3. Number and Percent of 21st CCLCs by School-Based Status During the 2007–08, 2008–09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13 Reporting Periods