In 2004, the U.S. Department of Education's Policy and Program Studies Service contracted with SRI International and its partner, Policy Studies Associates, to undertake an evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers. The following evaluation questions informed this study: (1) What is the nature of activities in centers that are designed to promote the academic development of students?; (2) How do centers vary with respect to regular attendance?; and (3) How do center leaders staff their centers, coordinate with other service providers and use data to improve programming? This report on the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program focuses on the implementation of reading and mathematics activities, student attendance and hiring and retaining qualified staff in centers from which data were obtained. The program statute requires that centers focus on academics and use research-based strategies for instruction. The law requires that students participate in academic activities at a frequency that is "sufficient to influence their learning." Ninety-eight percent of all centers funded as of the 2006-07 school year (the time of the study) reported that they offered activities in reading, and 94 percent of all centers offered activities in mathematics. Whether students are required to participate in these activities, however, varies by center. Centers serving elementary school students reported that the average student spent the most amount of time per week doing homework in a group setting (36 percent) or participating in arts or recreation activities (33 percent) (Exhibit ES-1). One-quarter of centers reported that a typical student received instruction in reading or practiced reading skills, and 19 percent of centers indicated that a typical student engaged in mathematics activities for more than 4 hours per week. Thirty-six percent of centers reported that a typical student worked on homework in a group setting (which could also include reading and mathematics activities), and 33 percent said that the typical student was involved in arts/recreation activities for more than 4 hours per week. Because centers were open for about 16 hours per week, on average, student participation for 4 hours per week in a particular activity represented 25 percent of the available time. Appended are: (1) Descriptions of Academic Instruction for Centers Serving All Students; (2) Case Study Observations; (3) Sampling Approach and Weighting of Surveys; (4) Survey Instruments; (5) Supplementary Tables for the Surveys; and (6) 21st CCLC Quality Study--Quality Observation Instrument. (Contains 60 exhibits and 18 footnotes.

This evaluation study provides information about the implementation and outcomes of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC) program in West Virginia, from September 2014 through May 2015. The report draws on information from online surveys of 23 directors of 21st CCLC programs and from school teachers for 929 of the 11,299 participating students. It also draws on West Virginia General Summative Assessment (WVGSA) scores provided by the West Virginia Department of Education (WVDE) for students who participated in a 21st CCLC program for at least 30 days (1,864), and a matching group of 1,864 nonparticipants used as a control. The students were grouped by grade level and compared in mathematics and English/language arts (ELA) using scale score means for Grades 4-11. Most participating students were in the elementary grades. The mean number of days students attended ranged from about 2 to 108 days, depending on the program. Teachers perceived the greatest improvements in participating students' behaviors related to turning in homework on time, participating in class, completing homework to teachers' satisfaction, and academic performance. Regarding 21st CCLC program volunteers, the largest sources were K-12 service learning programs (36.8%), parents (20.2%), and higher education service learning programs (14.8%). The groups with which program directors reported the greatest level of success were higher education service learning programs (3.8 on a 4.0 scale), community organizations (3.6 of 4.0), and K-12 service learning programs (3.6 of 4.0). Regarding work with partners, the most frequent types of support received were program resources (28.2%), programming (22.1%), and joint planning (18.0%). With the exception of a few activities, all program directors who had engaged in the various partnership activities considered them to be effective. Program directors said they needed more professional development in program sustainability, more technical assistance in program evaluation, and more information resources in STEM/STEAM. As for parent and community involvement, more than 60% of program directors indicated they either had no family component or they had only slight success in their efforts to involve parents/guardians or other adult community members. In responses to open-ended questions, program directors indicated programs for students and better student attendance/participation were the most successful. The program directors felt the greatest challenges were personnel issues, parent engagement and support, and funding and sustainability. Program directors were asked to make recommendations for how to improve the program for the future. Most program directors who commented wrote about redundancies in reporting, the hard-to-use WVEIS 21st CCLC data collection interface, and the inability to utilize data entered. The quasi-experimental study in mathematics using scale score means for Grades 4-11 showed the observed differences were not statistically significant. The quasi-experimental study in ELA using scale score means for Grades 4-11 also showed that the observed differences were not statistically significant. The following are appended: (1) Detailed Description of Study Methods; (2) Survey Questionnaires; and (3) Informed Consent Forms. [For the 2013-2014 report, see ED569701.].

The 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program is a federal program that awards grants to rural and inner-city public schools, or consortia of such schools, to enable them to plan, implement, or expand projects that benefit the educational, health, social services, cultural and recreational needs of the community. Grants awarded under this program may be used to plan, implement, or expand community learning centers. Contents: program information; program eligibility checklist; selection criteria; instructions and forms for preparing the application; how to submit an application; supplementary information; and application checklist.

The 21st CCLC program was originally authorized as Part I of Title X, of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended. This program was reauthorized as part of the reauthorization of the ESEA by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, and was signed into law on January 8, 2002. This report discusses implementation of the reauthorized 21st CCLC program, and the recent evaluation of the program and its implications.

Addressing an issue of burning interest to every taxpayer, a Heritage Foundation scholar brings objective analysis to bear as he responds to the important—and provocative—question posed by his book's title. Of course, the answer to that question will also help determine whether the American public should fear budget cuts to federal social programs. Readers, says author David B. Muhlhausen, can rest easy. As his book decisively demonstrates, scientifically rigorous national studies almost unanimously find that the federal government fails to solve social problems. To prove his point, Muhlhausen reports on large-scale evaluations of social programs for children, families, and workers, some advocated by Democrats, some by Republicans. But it isn't just the results that matter. It's the lesson to readers on how Americans can—and should—accurately assess government programs that cost hundreds of billions of dollars each year. At the book's core is an insistence that we move beyond anecdotal reasoning and often-partisan opinion to measure the effectiveness of social programs using objective analysis and scientific methods. At the very least, the results of such analysis will, like this book, provide a sound basis for much-needed public debate.