Over the past two years, California allocated more than $4.1 billion to support the California Community Schools Partnership Program (CCSPP). The state is now well into the process of distributing those resources.
The funds are intended to support the roll out of community schools, planning for opening new community schools, and technical assistance to support these expansion efforts. The state has already funded a round of planning, implementation, and technical assistance grants. In the summer of 2022, we posted a blog that provided an overview of the initial distribution. Subsequent blogs dug deeper into the planning and implementation grants describing how the applicants initially intended to use those resources. This fourth blog in our series provides a quick review of the second round of planning grant awards announced at the California State Board of Education’s March 2023 board meeting.
Nearly $45 million in new planning funds. The California State Board of Education approved a total of 226 new CCSPP planning grants at the March 2023 meeting for a total of $44.7 million. Most of those who applied for funding received an award. A total of 238 local educational agencies (LEAs) applied for planning grants in the second round; 95% received funding. Nearly all of the grants were for the maximum amount, $200,000, with only 24 LEAs being awarded less and most of those requested very close to the maximum.
This round of funding adds to the 192 awards and $38.2 million from the first round. In total, the CCSPP has provided 418 grants to LEAs for a total of $82.9 million.
Larger share of planning grants awarded to school districts. In this round, most of the grants went to school districts (139). Eleven were awarded to county offices and 76 went to charter schools in the state. That represents a slight shift from the first round, when there were 192 awarded, with about 8% going to county offices of education (COEs) and the rest roughly split between school districts (47%) and charter schools (46%).
Similar to the first round, there were examples of several schools under a single charter management organization (CMO) receiving planning grants. For example, four schools managed by Aspire received a total of $800,000 in planning funds. This appears to be an unintended consequence of restrictions in the legislation. Under those provisions, the maximum amount was the same regardless of the structure of the LEA. As a result, while a CMO could receive funding for each school it wanted to plan for, a school district could only receive $200,000 even if they were planning for multiple schools within their jurisdiction.
Overall share of unduplicated students drops slightly. Based upon LEA-level data, the recipients of the grants represent a high percentage of high-needs students as defined by the California local control funding formula (LCFF) unduplicated student count. By this measure, the average share of unduplicated students is just under 70%. The range is considerable, from LEAs with just 15% unduplicated students in their district to those where all of the students are among those qualifying for free or reduced school meals, English-language learners, foster youth, or homeless. The median value of the unduplicated student share across the 226 planning grant recipients in round two of the CCSPP was 78%.
Compared to the first round of planning grants, the unduplicated share represents a slight decline. The share of unduplicated students at the LEA level was 78% in the first round. It is worth noting, however, that higher need students are not evenly distributed across a school district and a single school could have a much higher concentration than the LEA average. Regardless, the majority of the planning grants awarded in both rounds 1 and 2 were well above the statewide average of 63%.
Geography
From a geographic perspective, all regions of the state were represented in this second round of planning grants with 47 of the 58 counties having at least one award. The 11 counties not receiving funding in round two included three relatively large counties -- San Francisco, Riverside and Stanislaus – as well as eight sparsely populated counties (Calaveras, Del Norte, Lake, Mono, San Benito, Shasta, Sierra, Yuba).
Taking rounds one and two together, planning grants were awarded to LEAs in 56 of the state’s 58 counties. The two counties not represented in either round – Calaveras and Sierra – are quite small with a combined population of about 50,000 residents. Some small rural counties such as Alpine, Del Norte, and Mono did receive a single planning grant. At the other end of the spectrum, Los Angeles County accounted for the most planning grants (77) while LEAs in San Diego County received 31 grants.
To better understand the distribution of planning grants, we did calculate the number of planning grants each county received relative to the number of active schools in that county. There, the picture is more interesting, with LEAs in some counties pursuing the planning grants much more aggressively than others. For example, Humboldt accounted for 23 of the grants in a county with 125 schools (5.4 grants/school). Trinity (5.2) and Glenn (8.4) counties were similarly active.
Other parts of the state were far less engaged in the CCSPP planning grant rounds relative to the number of schools. One planning grant was awarded in Stanislaus even though the county includes over 200 schools. Shasta county also received only one grant for its 121 schools. And in the Bay Area, three grants were awarded to Contra Costa, a county with more than 300 schools.
Given the arms-length nature of our research, we cannot say with certainty what is driving the variation. Some districts and charter schools were clearly motivated to pursue the grants. Considering the high rate of approval and modest deliverables, there was little downside to trying to secure funding to explore the concept of establishing a community school. Others, however, skipped the process altogether, but whether that was because of ineligibility, a lack of interest, or lack of capacity to apply, we cannot say.
Looking forward
Although the CCSPP commitment spans seven years, the state has completed the distribution of planning grants with only the two rounds. The concept behind this timeline was that LEAs would begin planning in the first couple of years, and then return with an application for implementation funds.
What will be the impact of this investment? Given the very high probability of being approved for a grant, any LEA even remotely considering pursuing a community school would have been encouraged to apply. Now, with over 400 in the field, it will be important to see how many take the next step and apply for implementation support. And of course, the real test will be what percentage of the planning grants lead to functioning, sustainable community schools five to seven years from now.
Is it possible to have too much money? After the first two rounds of planning grants, the state has awarded less than 30% of the money earmarked for that purpose. Per the statute language, the planning grants were to be at least 10% of the 2021 funding, or over $287 million. Adding together the first-round grants ($38 million) with those from the second round ($45 million) brings the total amount of planning awards to $83 million. That figure leaves a substantial amount ($204 million) unallocated. Again, per the statute, these funds are to be made available for implementation grants going forward.
It is worth noting that the allocation parameters for the planning grants didn’t demonstrate a great deal of foresight in the design. Given the total amount ($287 million) combined with the maximum award ($200,000) would have resulted in a total of 1,435 awards – or more than 3 times the 418 that have been awarded. In fact, had the entire $287 million been allocated, that total number would represent 60% of the total number of school districts, county offices, and charter schools in the state. It is important to note that complicating the picture is the requirement that districts could not apply for planning funds to support reconfiguration of an existing community school. Therefore, not all LEAs were in a position to apply.
Regardless, the relatively large share of dollars left undistributed for planning suggests either a miscalculation of the demand for planning funds or an inability to generate greater interest in the program. Trying to retrospectively identify a better set-aside number isn’t all that useful at this point. More important is what will become of the “leftovers” – currently $204 million.
Even relative to California’s outsized scale, $204 million is a lot of money. For comparison, consider that this amount is two-thirds of the $300 million the Governor proposed for statewide Equity Multiplier. And, it is not entirely clear that the demand for CCSPP implementation dollars will outstrip the existing supply. The first round of implementation grants committed $625 million. We now know that the second round of implementation grants totaled $750 million. Based upon the numbers reported at the most recent State Board of Education meeting, we estimate that at least $1.6 billion will be available for implementation rounds three and four.
How the funds are spent is as important as how much. Finally, we reiterate what has become a common refrain in these posts. Being able to describe the distribution of grants, to whom, and how they propose to spend the funds only goes so far. Whether the CCSPP initiative realizes its potential to transform schools and their students will be a function of the decisions made at the school site level. For example, a needs assessment could be produced by a school administrator sitting in their office and brainstorming what they see as the critical gaps in services. Or, it could be a far more comprehensive exercise that examines historical data and engages staff, parents, and community members to identify the most critical challenges to be addressed. Both exercises could be considered an assessment of needs, but the latter is more likely to produce a complete description of the school and community needs, as well as providing the opportunity to hear from a broader array of voices.
We hope to continue to follow these funds to better understand those dynamics going forward.