Follow the Money: California Community Schools Partnership Program County Coordination Allocations

By Chiara Parisi, Patrick Murphy, and Richard Knecht

California’s landmark $4 billion investment in the California Community Schools Partnership Program (CCSPP) is currently in full swing. The program not only allows local educational agencies (LEAs) to allocate resources to student offerings, such as early education, expanded learning, and integrated student supports, but it also focuses on transforming their overall functioning. This includes fostering a positive school climate, promoting student and family engagement, and implementing shared leadership practices.

As part of an ongoing series, the Opportunity Institute published an initial post detailing which LEAs benefited from the first round of CCSPP grants. Subsequent posts delve into how applicants planned to spend their first round planning grants, first round implementation grants, and second round planning grants. The most recent installment in the series sheds light on the underrepresentation of rural schools in the CCSPP, prompting a closer examination of the program’s reach and impact. 

This post will specifically look into the CCSPP allocations to county offices of education (COEs) intended to support “coordination”. It will explore the purpose of these allocations, identify which counties received them, and detail how much each county has been granted. Furthermore, the post examines how these allocations align with existing initiatives that also encourage coordination and describes best practices for maximizing the impact of the allocated CCSPP funding. 

What are county office of education “coordination allocations”?

Allocations have been distributed to COEs to foster the coordination of partnerships between county government agencies and community-based nonprofit organizations to support community schools. According to the legislation, the allocations should contribute to supporting grant recipient communications with county-level governmental partners that can assist with practices like healthcare service billing. COEs should support LEAs in integrating other state-funded initiatives that are integral to the four pillars of community schools, such as expanded learning or behavioral health grants. The legislation also mentions the appointment of a county-level “community schools liaison” meant to coordinate with the California Department of Education and technical assistance centers in capacity building, resource connection, and continuous improvement activities. 

These funds are separate from the funds eight COEs received through competitively awarded Regional Technical Assistance Center (R-TAC) grants. While coordination allocations are primarily designed to bolster partnerships with government agencies, the integrated support systems pillar of community schools, R-TAC grants are meant to provide broader implementation support to LEAs and schools that received CCSPP grants. R-TAC grants should be used for the development of community schools resources and guidance, the dissemination of best practices, and the facilitation of peer networks for all community schools pillars. 

Which counties received coordination allocations and how much funding did each county receive?

A substantial sum of $140 million will be allocated to COEs to facilitate interagency coordination. Any county with at least two LEAs that received CCSPP grants will receive a county coordination allocation. The precise funding for each COE is dependent upon the number of community schools funded in the county and the number of pupils served in those schools. The counties will receive at least $200,000 and up to $500,000 annually, over a seven year period.

The first two rounds of allocations have already been dispersed, with nearly all counties receiving allocations. In the first year (2022-23), 41 counties received grants totaling almost $14 million, with an average of $340,000 per county. In the subsequent year, an additional 11 COEs joined the original 41 and received a total of $17 million, averaging $330,000 per county. Over the initial two-year span of the coordination allocation disbursements, the 52 counties have each received between $200,000 and $1 million. 

It is noteworthy that six counties—Alpine, Calaveras, Mariposa, Modoc, Sierra, and Tuolumne—did not receive allocations because no LEAs within the counties have been awarded CCSPP implementation grants. Alpine, Mariposa, Modoc, and Tuolumne have each only received a single planning grant for an LEA in their county.

How do the county coordination allocations align with other existing initiatives focused on coordination? 

The CCSPP is among several California programs aiming to foster an integrated support system. The coordination allocations are meant to complement existing initiatives that similarly encourage the creation of relationships across local government agencies and nonprofits. In order to avoid fragmentation and duplication, and maximize impact, it is important for the allocations to seamlessly integrate with, and expand on, existing efforts. 

An obvious starting point is the interagency structure established by AB 2083, which mandates that every county in California develop and implement a System-of-Care memorandum of understanding (MOU) for foster care involved children and youth. The MOU establishes Interagency Leadership Teams that must include the county child welfare agency, probation department, behavioral health department, office of education, local Regional Center, and tribal partners. The MOU delineates the roles and responsibilities of each entity, and covers aspects like assessment and screening processes, alignment of services, data sharing, and revenue sharing. AB 2083 serves as a safeguard against agencies passing responsibility to each other and leaving a child in need without the services they are legally entitled to. 

AB 2083 also established a joint interagency resolution team at the state level to support counties. The team includes the Secretary of California Health and Human Services, Superintendent of Public Instruction, State Department of Social Services, State Department of Health Care Services, State Department of Developmental Services, and State Department of Education. The primary role of the team is to develop guidance and provide technical assistance to counties in developing and implementing the MOU. Also, the team makes recommendations to the Legislature, addressing gaps in services and other pertinent issues. 

​​Other California efforts have similarly championed integration at the county-level, although they lack the structure of a backbone organization, as seen in AB 2083. For instance, more than fifty county or tribal Comprehensive Prevention Plans have recently been approved by the state under the federal Family First Prevention Services Act. These interagency plans include Child Welfare Services and Probation agencies, and in some cases also the Behavioral Health Department and school partners. They are intended to deliver early, community-centered evidenced based supports and services to keep children and youth at home and in school. Initiatives like the soon to be enacted Multi Payer School Fee Schedule, sponsored by the Department of Health Care Services, will greatly expand accessibility to services on school sites. The CCSPP dovetails nicely with these other initiatives, as COEs and community schools could be included in Comprehensive Prevention Plans, and Multi Payer School Fee Schedules can help support community schools efforts. 

At the state level, the California Child Welfare Council coordinates services for court-involved minors and youth who are at risk of entering the foster care system. Similarly, the California Interagency Coordinating Council on Early Intervention coordinates services for students with disabilities. SB-75 created a competitive grant program to fund partnerships between county mental or behavioral health departments and K-12 schools. The Cradle-to-Career Data System integrates education and job outcome data, linking it to tools that support college and career planning. First 5 California implements an integrated support system for children prenatal through age 5 and their families. Last, the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative fosters relationships with schools and mental health providers. 

The essential components of effective integrated support systems 

Developing integrated support systems is a complex and messy undertaking that frequently falls short of producing a lasting impact. Nonetheless, decades of nationwide research has provided insight into what it takes to develop effective integrated support systems at scale, highlighting the essential components that contribute to success.

Joint Leadership

Effective integrated support systems bring together leaders of diverse agencies and departments. The collaborative effort should span across government sectors, including, for example, the departments of education, mental health, public assistance, and child welfare. Interagency systems can also bring in organizations from the private and non-profit sectors. The representative of each government agency or organization should have full knowledge of the entity’s resources and authority to make decisions on behalf of the entity. This form of shared leadership requires a commitment to, among other things, building trust-based and high-quality interpersonal relationships among the participants. COEs can build from the Interagency Leadership Teams that already exist through AB 2083 to develop the necessary infrastructure for the CCSPP coordination allocations. 

Collective Goals 

Government agencies often have diverging, or even competing, goals and priorities. In an integrated support system, agency leaders develop shared goals to guide their work. The participating government bodies collectively try to move the needle on their shared goals and are held jointly accountable for making progress. A common first step in establishing shared goals is to conduct a needs assessment that provides insight into where the coordinating body needs to focus its efforts and prioritize resources. Once a needs assessment has been conducted and corresponding goals are established, a strategic plan should be developed to effectuate those goals. In California, COEs may start by coordinating needs assessments like the Child and Family Services Review and Mental Health Plan Performance Improvement Plan inquiry.

Shared Data

Shared data systems merge new and existing datasets to ease the flow of information across agencies. At the individual level, shared data systems enable service providers to identify needs, set up referrals, and coordinate services for a child and their family. At a systems level, data tracks progress towards the shared goals of the integrated support system and creates a feedback loop for continuous improvement. California’s data systems form a complex maze of information that an integrated support system would jointly navigate and coordinate. The AB 2083 MOU has already established a commitment to shared data that can be built upon for community schools, including the development of a singular release of information form for use by all schools and county systems. Within the System-of-Care efforts, a number of counties are experimenting with a common dashboard of outcomes or outputs. 

Aligned Funding 

Effective integrated support systems align the array of available funding streams to maximize resources and impact. Often, aligning funding begins with a fiscal mapping of federal, state, local, and private funding streams to help agencies understand where funding is coming from and where funding is going. With a fiscal map in hand, the integrated support system can identify, based on their needs, which funding allocations can be effectively shared, and in what form. For example, the CCSPP legislation, explicitly states that coordination allocations should be used to leverage funding from the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program, the California state preschool program, Universal Transitional Kindergarten, universal meal programs, health and mental health supports for pupils and staff, the local control funding formula, and any other available local, state, or federal funds that may facilitate and sustain the community school initiative. In addition to these educationally administered monies, additional value might be found in Mental Health Plans that serve Medi-Cal eligible children or youth. Shared financing is typically done through intergovernmental transfer or cost reconciliation between departments. Again, the AB 2083 Interagency Leadership Team would be the place to begin that exploration around aligned funding. 

Youth, Family, and Community Engagement

Meaningfully engaging with youth, families, and community members is critical to developing impactful solutions. There is often a disconnect in experiences and perspectives between public agency leaders and the population they are striving to serve, leading to policies and practices that don’t effectively address needs. State and federal funders increasingly emphasize the importance of genuine engagement, a fundamental aspect of the CCSPP. This engagement can be done in a range of different ways. In-person options include focus groups, community meetings, home visits, parent teacher conferences, town halls, and student and parent advisory groups. Engagement can also happen in virtual formats, like surveys, e-mails, or webpages. No matter the form of engagement, a foundation of trust between government officials and community members is essential to opening the door to deeper dialogue. And all of the different populations in a community should be represented in engagement efforts. Whenever possible, input from community members should be coupled with research and evidence to establish the goals of the integrated support system.

Coordinated Services 

Coordinated services seamlessly organize a range of supports to ensure timely access to comprehensive care. Because of their frequent access to children, schools are uniquely positioned to serve as a central hub for children to be connected to services. However, integrated support systems should take a “no wrong door” approach to care where an individual is connected to the appropriate services no matter what agency door they walk through. Intentional and thoughtful collaboration between service providers is necessary to ensure that only one service plan is in place for each child. This requires partners to align service referrals, definitions, roles and responsibilities, technologies, protocols, and diagnostic processes. Again, the AB 2083 MOUs already require partners to articulate agreements on coordinating services and those efforts should be built upon through coordination allocations. 

Human Resources

Interagency coordinating bodies with full-time staff members dedicated exclusively to the integration of systems are better able to support a broad scope of work. Staff members are helpful in project managing, conducting research, scheduling meetings, preparing materials, managing communications, and supporting implementation. This essential glue function, which must be effectively and clearly captured in written agreements, serves to reinforce the structure of the interagency work. Dedicated system staff also provide continuity through changes in leadership. As mentioned in the legislation, the CCSPP coordination allocations could be used to hire a county-level community schools liaison that can fill this administrative need and connect the integrated support system to community schools. 

Examples of county-level integrated support systems

Some counties serve as commendable models for the development of effective integrated support systems. As previously mentioned, AB 2083 requires California counties to develop Interagency Leadership Teams specifically for foster youth. However, some of those counties have expanded their integrated support system to encompass all children, including Sacramento, Santa Clara, Tuolumne, Ventura, Nevada, and Solano. 

Nationally, the Forum for Youth Investment runs a Local Children’s Cabinet Network with other successful examples of county-level integrated support systems. California counties in the network include Oakland, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Francisco, Stockton, and Lost Hills. The Los Angeles County Office of Education, for example, partners with over a dozen Los Angeles county agencies to provide a range of services in community schools—including counseling, mental health education, social services enrollment and case management, parent workshops, after-school programming, and field trips. 

In Maryland, a statewide initiative mandates all twenty-four of its counties to establish county-level coordinating bodies called Local Management Boards (Boards). The Boards work to serve the overall vision and goals of the state-level Children’s Cabinet, including reducing childhood trauma, hunger, and homelessness. In return, the state provides funding, training, and technical assistance to help the Boards coordinate agencies and implement programs.

Looking Forward

CCSPP coordination allocations come at an opportune time. The state has recently created or expanded a number of programs aimed at improving health, social, and educational outcomes for children and youth. County-level efforts to improve integration can help CCSPP grant recipients effectively implement integrated support systems at the school site. Years of studies have identified effective practices that will be helpful to counties as they develop their integrated support system. 

The education reform landscape is fragmented and school staff struggle to implement the array of new programs required of them. Existing efforts already focused on coordination, such as AB 2083, Comprehensive Prevention Plans, and the Cradle-to-Career Data System, must be built upon through CCSPP coordination allocations. Layering integration initiatives on top of each other, without integrating them, can make service delivery worse, increasing administrative load and decreasing the capacity to help students. Rather than constructing similar initiatives atop one another, we must consolidate and streamline integration efforts to maximize impact, and minimize burden. 

Last, the CCSPP legislation provides little directive on how the coordination allocations should be spent, with minimal reporting and oversight requirements. While this post aims to start the conversation, an important question remains: Who will take the lead in providing guidance and technical assistance to COEs? As of this writing, no clear leader has emerged. Hopefully, the recommendations outlined in this post can help shape the implementation of CCSPP coordination allocations and improve the well-being of California’s children and youth.

Follow the Money: The Underrepresentation of Rural Schools in the California Community Schools Partnership Program

By Chiara Parisi, Patrick Murphy, and Theodore Zarobell 

Implementation is well underway for California’s historic $4 billion investment in the California Community Schools Partnership Program (CCSPP). The CCSPP grants allow schools to strengthen their practices around relationship building, integrated student support, family engagement, shared leadership, and expanded learning.

As part of an ongoing series, the Opportunity Institute posted an initial blog giving an overview of which local educational agencies (LEAs) received the first round of CCSPP grants. Subsequent blogs dug into how applicants planned to spend their planning and implementation grants. And the most recent blog provided a similar overview of the second round of CCSPP planning grants. 

In every State Board of Education meeting to date, concerns have been raised by applicants and advocates about the participation of rural LEAs in the CCSPP. Several have claimed that rural applicants have been largely excluded from the program. In this piece, we take a closer look at how rural LEAs have fared in the first two rounds of CCSPP grants. 

Who can receive CCSPP grants?

For an LEA to be eligible to receive a CCSPP grant, it must have at least 50 percent “unduplicated pupils” or above average rates of students dropping out, exclusionary discipline, or justice-involved, foster, or homeless youth. In California, unduplicated pupils are high needs students who are either eligible for free or reduced-price meals, English learners, and/or foster youth. If an LEA is ineligible overall, but a school within the LEA is eligible, that school can make the entire LEA eligible. 

Beyond eligibility, the CCSPP prioritizes grant funding for applicants that meet certain criteria. Prioritized applicants include those that serve at least 80% high needs students, demonstrate a need for and commitment to integrated services, use collaborative leadership and family and community engagement practices, demonstrate a need for early childhood education, and identify a plan to sustain community school services after grant expiration. An additional priority was approved during a State Board of Education meeting for applicants serving small and rural schools. However, there are no details in the legislation on how the different priority criteria are weighed.

Rural LEAs were less likely to apply for CCSPP grants

In the first round of planning and implementation grants, rural LEAs were among the least likely to apply for CCSPP grants. Only 12 out of the state’s 58 counties failed to apply to the program and several of those counties were rural, including Alpine, Sierra, and Mariposa. While 8% of urban LEAs applied for implementation grants, only 5% of rural LEAs did. Similarly, while 12% of urban LEAs applied for planning grants, only 9% of rural LEAs did. 

Several factors may have contributed to these numbers. The relatively short timeline between the announcement requesting applications to the due date for submissions may explain some of the difference. Rural schools typically have less administrative capacity and turning around a grant application in a hurry is challenging. Knowing that multiple rounds of applications were planned, the sense of urgency to get into the first round may have also been reduced. Further, grant funds with formula allocations can be seen as not worth the effort to small rural districts with low enrollment. Rural schools may have also been discouraged from applying because of the priority for LEAs that enroll at least 80% high-needs students—a number many rural LEAs do not meet. 

Are rural LEAs underrepresented in CCSPP grant allocations?

There are various ways to assess whether rural LEAs are adequately represented in the CCSPP. One way is to compare the percentage of existing LEAs that received grants by geography. Under this measure, rural LEAs are underrepresented. For example, in round one, 12% of existing urban LEAs received planning grants, compared to only 5% of rural LEAs. Similarly, for implementation grants, out of the existing urban LEAs in the state of California, 4% received grants in round one, compared to 2% of rural LEAs. In round two of grant allocations, there were improvements in planning grant participation for rural schools: 11% of existing urban LEAs in California received planning grants in round two, compared to 10% of rural LEAs. Instead, for implementation grants, the relative share going to rural schools was unchanged and the gap between urban and rural schools worsened. Of the existing urban LEAs in California, 11% received implementation grants in round two, compared to only 2% of rural LEAs.

Another way to measure if rural LEAs are adequately represented is to look at the pool of LEAs that applied. Under this measure, applicants in rural areas were still less likely to receive grant funding than other types of LEAs. In round one of the CCSPP, while only 71% of rural LEA planning grant applicants received funding, 99% of urban and 92% of suburban LEA applicants did. Similarly, while 70% of urban and 81% of suburban applicants received implementation grants in round one, only 53% of rural applicants did. 

Alternatively, you could measure representation by looking at the percentage of eligible LEAs (LEAs with more than 50% unduplicated high-needs students) that received grants. Again, under this measure, rural LEAs are underrepresented. Rural LEAs make up 19% of all eligible LEAs according to the National Center for Education Statistics, but have only received 14% of CCSPP grants to date. Suburban areas are well represented: they make up 27% of eligible LEAs, and received 26% of CCSPP grants. LEAs in towns and urban areas, on the other hand, are overrepresented. Towns, which make up only 12% of eligible LEAs, have received 16% of CCSPP grants. And urban areas, with only 38% of eligible LEAs, received 44% of CCSPP grants. 

Last, you could measure representation by looking at the number of high-needs LEAs (LEAs with more than 80% unduplicated high-needs students). Under this measure, rural schools are adequately represented. There are 787 high-needs LEAs in California and 13% of them are in areas classified as rural. Rural LEAs received almost 14% of all CCSPP grants distributed thus far in planning and implementation grants. Similarly, 25% of high-needs LEAs are in suburban areas, and suburban LEAs received 26% of grants to date. And 47% of high-needs LEAs are in urban areas, and urban LEAs received 45% of grants thus far. On the other hand, only 10% of high-needs LEAs are in towns, but LEAs in towns received almost 16% of grants. 

Accordingly, advocates have pointed to the prioritization of schools with high-needs students as the cause of gaps in participation for rural schools. In the first round of grants, CDE claimed to use cut scores and fund schools with 80% or higher high-needs students or 70% or higher for rural schools. For the second round, those numbers were lowered to 68% and 58%, and CDE also funded sites with a non-stability rate of 58% or higher. 

But our analysis, using California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) data, shows a different picture. For example, CDE reported that in round one of implementation grants, 447 out of the 458 school sites that received grants were at or above the 80% high needs pupil count. However, according to our numbers, out of the total 586 LEAs receiving CCSPP grants, 248 had less than 80% high-needs students. And 47 of those LEAs currently have even less than 50% high-needs students as well. The difference in statistical findings is interesting and could be due to CDE using different sources of data. 

Examples of Rural Schools and CCSPP 

While some rural schools have been successful, others have failed to obtain grant funding. One success story can be found in Humboldt County. The Loleta Union Elementary District, a school with an unduplicated pupil percentage of 95%, had already begun constructing a network of community organizations to support their students long before CCSPP was even being discussed. Among their partners are the True North Organizing Network, Two Feathers Family Services, and the College of the Redwoods Multicultural and Equity Center. With their $713,000 CCSPP grant, they can more deeply invest in the community schools model they already have established. 

Clovis Global Academy (CGA) is new to community schools and received a first round planning grant. They plan to use the grant as “a chance to approach teaching and learning the way it should be.” A dual-language immersion school, CGA found the principles of community schools to be nearly congruent with their own mission and vision. They will use the $200,000 they received to assess where additional funding, through an implementation grant, can help them better serve the students and families of their Fresno County community.

On the other hand, other rural LEAs with robust commitments to community schools have been left on the sidelines. For example, the West Kern Consortium, including Lost Hills Union Elementary, Semitropic Elementary, and Maple Elementary, previously received funding from the federal Full Service Community Schools Grant Program. The consortium is a great example of a community schools approach for rural districts. They were able to build a successful whole-child approach to education across districts, including initiatives on early childhood education, shared data, expanded learning, a children’s cabinet, math coaching, family partnerships, and social and health services. 

The consortium of six districts applied for a CCSPP implementation grant in the hopes of expanding their community schools program to include initiatives on literacy, multi-tiered systems of support, mental health, and domestic abuse. All districts in the consortium but Maple Elementary were funded. Maple Elementary filed an appeal and asked that the scoring rubric be made publicly available. They were told that they did not receive funding because they only had 56% high-needs students, and a low stability rate of 6%, while the other districts in the consortium on average had 76% high-needs students. The exclusion of Maple Elementary from the CCSPP funding is a blow to the consortium's reliance on pooled funding and shared resources. 

Looking forward

Overall, rural LEAs are underrepresented in the CCSPP. Again, in every State Board of Education meeting to date, concerns have been raised by rural applicants and advocates about the participation of rural LEAs in the program. The data shows that those concerns were warranted and the absence of rural schools among the grantees was systemic, rather than anecdotal rejections. 

Though the CDE has publicly acknowledged the need for the increased representation of rural LEAs and added a priority in the scoring criteria, barriers remain for rural applicants. The Community Schools Learning Exchange argues that the CCSPP has no measure for the unique ecosystem of rural communities. Instead, the realities of urban and suburban districts are centered in the application criteria. Most policy in California is geared toward the most people. In other states, due to features of the state constitution, rural areas tend to be overrepresented in the state capital. But in California, each senate district represents a larger but relatively equal population. Designing programs for the mean or even median district can leave out rural schools. However, the CDE is also well-intentioned in prioritizing the highest needs schools. A commitment to equity, and an equitable distribution of funding, is a core feature of the CCSPP framework.

How should the CDE balance competing advocacy for which students should be prioritized in grant allocations? And given the apparent abundance of funding for the program overall, is the prioritization of certain eligible applicants over others necessary? If nothing else, CDE should be more transparent about how they are scoring applications and make clear what tradeoffs are being made. 

Going forward, if the CDE wants to be more inclusive of rural schools, new approaches to increasing participation should be considered. Perhaps the unduplicated pupil count priority should be lowered. Or, more weight could be given to rural LEA classification in the scoring rubric compared to the other priorities. A few rural LEAs that were awarded planning grants in round one managed to secure implementation grants in round two—Regional Technical Assistance Centers might make a concerted effort to assist the remaining 67 rural LEAs with planning grants in applying for future rounds of implementation grants. Or perhaps special carve outs for rural schools need to be added to the CCSPP, like the Title V, Part B programs in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) specifically available for small and rural schools.

Even if rural LEAs are proportionally represented in future rounds of the CCSPP, they will still face challenges in meeting the unique needs of rural communities. While urban areas often have a developed infrastructure of social services, in rural communities, there is a lack of access to basic necessities. For example, rural schools can be located in food deserts or hours away from the nearest hospital. The absence of other services, like transportation, are also commonplace. Community schools programs were intended to fund the integration of existing social services into the education system, not the creation of new social services. Other funding streams aimed at increasing the infrastructure of public services more generally, like programs under the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative, will also be crucial for rural communities seeking a whole-child education.

Follow the Money: California Community Schools Partnership Program Second Round of Planning Grants

By Patrick Murphy 

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. 

Charter Schools: A Missed Opportunity To Improve Education Through Innovation

By Chiara Parisi

The U.S. education system, unlike other fields, has failed to encourage and learn from innovation. Charter schools—publicly-funded schools with the freedom to develop innovative practices—offered an opportunity to address the education system’s resistance to change. The hope was that charter schools could serve as laboratories of innovation for new school models that traditional public schools across the country could later adopt. Despite these good intentions, the charter school movement has not resulted in the change early advocates hoped for. Charter schools often recycle old practices instead of experimenting with new ones. And when a charter school does develop a successful innovation, traditional schools seldom replicate it. 

To effectuate the promise of the charter school movement, this Article, published in the Notre Dame Journal of Legislation, proposes that three new requirements be added to charter school accountability and authorization frameworks: (1) charter school applicants must demonstrate a commitment to implementing innovative practices; (2) charter school authorizers must evaluate innovative practices to measure their impacts; and (3) charter school authorizers must disseminate their findings in public databases of evidence-based practices for education.

Follow the Money: How will the California Community Schools Partnership Program Implementation Grants Be Spent?

By Mark Cheney, Patrick Murphy, and Chiara Parisi

Introduction

California’s recent investment of over four billion dollars into community schools signals significant support for the community school model. The state views community schools as an evidence-based approach to improve the connection between schools, families, and communities to improve educational outcomes for all. The scale at which California is investing in its schools is unprecedented and the implementation of community schools and the state structures around them are works in progress. In its “Follow the Money” series, the Opportunity Institute (OI) is investigating the initial inputs and investments in the California Community Schools Partnership Program (CCSPP). Initial insights in the first three blogs of the'' series provide a quick overview of top-line indicators.

The first blog in the “Follow the Money” series investigates which Local Education Agencies (LEAs) applied for and received CCSPP grants in real time. It discussed the rates at which both planning and implementation grants were approved and dove into the demographic information of the schools receiving and being denied funding.

The second blog in the series further explores planning grants for schools without existing community school sites. It examined who received planning grants, what the planning grant funds were spent on, and what types of matching funds, if any, came from either the community or the district.

This third blog in the “Follow the Money” series, will take a closer look at implementation grants. It comes as California is in the process of accepting and reviewing the second round of applications for implementation grants. 

Who received a CCSPP implementation grant?

OI’s first blog in the “Follow the Money” series outlines the initial information surrounding both grants. Implementation grants initially had an 84% approval and funding rate. More than twice as many planning grants (192) were approved than implementation grants (76). This disparity is most certainly due to the newness of community schools in California and will most likely change when the next rounds of implementation grants are approved.

An initial qualification for receiving an implementation grant was to have at least fifty percent of students be unduplicated. To improve equity, the CCSPP prioritized funding schools that enrolled at least 80% unduplicated students. When grants were initially approved and funded, 90% of the students at schools awarded implementation grants were unduplicated. Discussed in OI’s first blog, implementation grants are being directed more disproportionately to LEAs with higher portions of African Americans and Hispanic or Latino students. Those are two positive signs that the community school grant resources are being equitably directed to those who need them most.

As reported by the California Department of Education (CDE), 76 applications have been approved and funded. Of those awards applications, 10 went to county offices of education, 50 went to school districts, and 16 went to charter schools for a total of $611 million.

Like planning grant money, implementation grant money is being directed toward students who need it most, schools serving high concentrations of unduplicated pupils. Implementation grant applicants had average unduplicated pupil populations of 80% and implementation grant award recipients had average unduplicated pupil populations of 90%, both higher than the statewide average percentages of unduplicated pupils (63%). Schools who received implementation grant money also possessed higher percentages of students who identified as African American, Hispanic or Latino, or Asian than statewide averages.

Unlike the planning grants, LEAs with an existing community schools program are eligible for the program. The CCSPP program will provide funds for eligible schools for up to $500,000 annually per school site for up to five years. As a result, the total funding awarded can be considerable, with the average grant awarded in the first round being just over $8 million and the median amount being $4 million. Planning grants, on the other hand, are issued to LEAs with no existing community schools in place and they award no more than $200,000 per LEA.

There were some significant differences in what LEAs applied for and what they received. Overall, the state approved just over $600 million in this first round of implementation grant awards, roughly $100 million less overall than the total amount requested by applicants. Some received less than what they requested; for example, Oakland Unified School District was awarded almost $67 million for implementation grants, $13 million less than what they requested in their application.

In a few cases, schools were awarded more money than they requested. In fact, a majority of the applicants received an award that was greater than their request. This appears to be a consequence of an effort to standardize the award amounts, at least in part. The CDE included in its materials to the State Board (see California State Board of Education May 2022 Agenda) a schedule that assigned award amounts based upon the size of the school and implementation year. These amounts ranged from a 5-year total award of $712,500 for a small school (25-150 students) to an award of $2,375,000 for a large school (2,001 or more students). The application of this schedule appears to have had a substantial effect on the award, and by our count, seven applicants received more than $1 million beyond what they requested. 

The application of the schedule had a second consequence that distinguished this round of implementation grants from the first round of planning grants. Because of the provisions of the legislation and how it was implemented, planning grants could be awarded to a single charter school for the maximum amount, $200,000. The maximum planning award for a school district with multiple schools, however, was also $200,000. The result was a significant disparity in the dollars available from a per student served perspective. This round of implementation funding, which calculated the award amount based upon the number of eligible schools and the size of those schools, resulted in less disparity in terms of funding per student served.

What will the implementation grants be spent on?

LEAs submitted implementation grant applications with specified budget items for which this award would be used and those details varied in specificity. Some submissions spelled out precisely how much would be spent on specific items, but many did not. For example, one LEA lists budget items, but associates no dollar amount with each budget item: 

Salary of one Counselor who has a deep SEL background to do the work of a TK-8th grade school counselor. Funding for [additional] days of psychology services from the county. School admin and teacher time will be allocated resources from the district to match requested grant funds and successfully implement the Phase I program.

Although this LEA listed a total of $492,367.52 toward spending on “Certificated Personnel Salaries”, there was no itemization of this total. The lack of specific attribution of dollar amounts to budget items presents a challenge to more precisely define how much, total and percentage, is spent on specific items.

Another example of missing, incomplete or incorrect data occurred with some LEAs who detailed the amount spent on specific budget items but did not have totals that matched the grant money associated with line of spending. For instance, one LEA listed $375,000 toward five-year spending for “Certificated Personnel Salaries” but only accounted for $80,750 in their budget description. CDE and CCSPP in coordination with the Technical Assistance Centers (TACs) should consider establishing how faithful these applications must be upon submission and then reconcile them with final spending. This reconciliation will add another layer of accountability straining an already stretched state budget. Neglecting this final reconciliation might be cost effective for the current budget, but hinders those attempting to ascertain which programs have the best return on their investment.

The implementation grant applications break spending into six categories: Certificated staff; classified staff; employee benefits; books and supplies; services and other operating expenditures; and capital outlay, but this research simplifies those six into three categories: staff, stuff, services.

Staff accounted for 69% of all budgeted spending. Community School Coordinators were the most commonly listed position (seventy percent of all grant applications). Other common budgeted positions are family and community engagement liaisons, social workers, school counselors, teachers, and paraprofessional educators.

Services accounted for 28% of budgeted spending. Professional development was commonly listed in the services category. Other popular budget items are community school consultants, creating family engagement networks, third party contracts with medical, mental, and dental health providers, Sown to Grow whole child support system, and services to support families like babysitting for parents to attend meetings and translation services.

Accounting for the smallest portion of spending is Stuff (3%). Books and supplies were the most common items in this category. They were often in reference to wellness centers, socio-emotional learning, parent and community engagement centers. Other common items were curriculum, supplies, and materials and were dedicated mainly to classroom instruction, socio-emotional learning, restorative justice, family/community engagement or professional development. Again, all of these elements comport with the concept of community schools as defined by the CDE.

Capital Outlay, the second part of the stuff category, was not a common budget item. It occurred twelve times among the 84 applications, but only five of those mentions had a dollar value listed for the grant money. Presumably, the capital outlay money from the other seven mentions should be coming from either community or district matches.

Looking at the data from a different angle tells us to what extent a school’s spending fulfilled the critical components of the community school model. Collaborative leadership practices were the most addressed budget item. Establishing community school coordinators and creating a variety of professional development programs were the two most common examples of collaborative leadership practices addressed.

Integrated student supports is the element addressed with the second most mentions. It is worth repeating that LEAs, to address whole-child equity, added staff positions like therapists, counselors, and social workers or wrap-around services that address students’ dental, medical, and mental health.

Family and community engagement was also an important part of grant applications, and ranked third in terms of mentions. LEAs funded Family and/or Community Liaisons, welcoming spaces like parent engagement centers for families within schools, community partnership events, and parent education workshops.

Community and District Matching Funds

California recognizes the importance of braided and blended funding and community involvement to the success of community schools. Passed by the state legislature in 2021, AB 130 requires these grants to have a local match of at least one-third of the grant amount from the state. LEAs must work together within their community to ensure fidelity to the community school model. Requiring this investment deepens the community to school connection giving the community a greater stake in the school’s success. Local community organizations and school districts must be vested in these community schools for them to succeed and how better to show that investment than with funding, resources, and regular collaboration. Of the 84 LEAs receiving implementation grant awards, 45 had matches coming from the community, 82 had matches coming from the district, and 54 LEAs possessed both a community and district match. Future LEAs should recognize the importance of these investments and regularly seek them out. Creating positions like or similar to Community School Coordinators should afford schools the bandwidth to actively seek these investments from the community.

The detailed budget spending for implementation grants often did not distinguish grant funded items from match funded items, nor did it usually distinguish between community or district matches. When detailing budget items, most LEAs listed what the grant and match would be spent on together. Still, the grant and match money would be directed toward supporting the community school elements through various efforts including, but not limited to, funding parent and family engagement, professional development, socio-emotional learning, wellness/health checkups, reinforcement of restorative justice and trauma-informed practices, expanded learning opportunities, college pathways, and career technical education. 

Looking Forward

The information provided in this brief offers a simple description of the first round of implementation funding and does not represent a deep dive into the success of the community school model in California as a result of this recent investment. That research will come much later. This review offers an overview of where implementation grants have been awarded, how grantees propose to spend the funds in their applications, and how robustly the community and/or district matched grant money. It also highlights the need to pay particular attention to elements of the community schools initiative going forward. 

• The critical role of the Technical Assistance Centers (TACs). The first round of CCSPP funds have been pushed out to the field quickly. Our review of the applications suggests that the grant recipients plan to use their new resources in a manner that generally aligns with the key elements needed for successful community schools. It is also apparent that moving from general plans to specific implementation will require assistance. The TACs are just starting to come online. Their ability to advise grant recipients about the myriad of implementation details likely to emerge in the coming months will be a critical determinant of the success of the community school model.

• Data, reporting, and evaluation. What data will CDE, CCSPP, and the TACs rely upon to gauge the level of success for certain programs, interventions, and/or services? Data management must be an important aspect of every community school. Although less than half of LEAs specifically budgeted for data management and/or data analysis in their implementation grant applications, it will be important to be thoughtful, collaborative, and explicit about the data used to evaluate each community school. CDE and CCSPP must work in conjunction with the TACs and community schools to develop, enumerate, and cultivate this important data. TACs and LEAs must work together using the agreed upon data to evaluate programs and to make amendments to them when they fall short.

• Mental health and other systems of support. Providing mental health and other services has become more central to the discussion of education in the wake of the pandemic. Eighty percent of the implementation grant awards mentioned funding for Integrated Support Systems. Though this high percentage represents an acknowledgment of the need to prioritize these services, realizing their integration into a school can be challenging.  And the CCSPP will need to identify the role of community schools among other efforts to encourage interagency collaboration.

• Career Technical Education (CTE). CTE has become an important part of public education. CTE or similar programs were mentioned in just over 10 percent of applications. Does its absence in most applications represent a missed opportunity to improve connections between the school and the community? Are there ways for the TACs to improve the connection between schools and the community through the creation of robust CTE programs?

• Capital outlays. As community schools increase in size and scope, it is possible that LEAs might require creating new spaces or renovating current spaces to accommodate the services each site will offer. Few LEAs listed capital outlay (14%) as a budget item. As a result, site size and configuration limitations might present challenges to meet the increasing resources available at the schools.

• Future fiscal challenges. California as a state could face significant fiscal headwinds in the future. The Legislative Analyst Office’s Fiscal Outlook concludes that the economic developments of 2022 have the potential to create a $25 billion “budget problem.” The Governor’s January budget highlighted a gap of a similar magnitude. OI’s own work on the topic notes that the future could be considerably worse. A downturn in overall state revenues has a direct impact on school funding. If districts face a decline in revenue in the coming year, will they be able to resist the temptation to backfill with other resources designated for other purposes – such as community schools?

The research analyzed in this blog confirms that these CCSPP grants are being directed toward the schools and students who need it most, and that the award recipients intend to use the funds to support the key elements of the community school model. Realizing those goals will depend mightily upon how the funds are actually used on the ground, beyond the broad categories outlined above. Ideally, California’s community schools investment will serve as the experiment that guides growth and adoption of the model beyond the state. For that to happen, it will be important to know which investments produced positive returns. Understanding how those resources are deployed, however, will depend upon more detailed reporting as well as a commitment to following the money. At this point, it is not certain those steps will be taken.

Working Paper: California’s Children & Youth Behavioral Health Ecosystem

In 2022, CalHHS commissioned a paper regarding how the CYBHI (the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative) can most effectively achieve its extraordinary goal of fundamentally expanding and improving California’s child, youth, and family behavioral health ecosystem. The Opportunity Institute was proud to be part of the amazing multidisciplinary team (led by Breaking Barriers California and supported by BCG) that wrote this paper, "California's Children & Youth Behavioral Health Ecosystem." The effort was led by CYBHI Director, Melissa Stafford Jones, and included children, youth, families, and those that serve and support them. It gives guidance and practical advice on the best pathways to providing more supportive, accessible, comprehensive, and effective assistance and defines how our shared goal to serve the whole child can be achieved through collective impact. 

This paper is a critical step in state efforts to realize sustainable and impactful change in the health and wellbeing of all of California's children, youth and families. In coming weeks, look for more information from Breaking Barriers' and its' amazing ecosystem partners to further unite children, youth, families, and those that serve and support them in achieving the community of care and support we all want and need. 

Pension Debt Challenges for Equity in Education: The Effect of Teacher Pension Debt Costs on K-12 Education Funding in California

By Anthony Randazzo, Jonathan Moody, Max Marchitello, and Patrick Murphy

Pension Debt Challenges for Equity in Education: The Effect of Teacher Unfunded Liability Costs on K–12 Education Funding in California uncovered that the rising costs for public school retirement benefits continue to squeeze K-12 school district budgets in California, undermining the state’s ability to improve education outcomes for students. What is important to note is that this report documents the fact that these growing costs hit the districts that already have fewer resources the hardest because of regressive funding mechanisms that compound disparities between low- and high-wealth communities. Calling attention to the equity implications of underfunding of teacher pensions is not a critique of public pensions but rather a call for greater transparency which can lead to solutions that have equity at the core.

Our new report notes that despite steady contribution rate increases since 2014, as of the close of fiscal 2022 the California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS) only has 81.2% funding and carries roughly $70 billion in unfunded liabilities. The costs of paying down this pension debt, which now accounts for 65% of every dollar contributed to the pension plan 

by CalSTRS employers, are effectively siphoning funds from the classroom. 

The report lays out how growing teacher retirement costs are creating a challenge to efforts aiming to improve education resource equity in California: 

• Part 1 shows generally How Teacher Retirement Costs Affect School Finances. 

• Part 2 shows specifically that Pension Spending Has Exacerbated Existing Funding Inequities. 

• Part 3 shows in detail how Underperforming Investments and Contribution Shortfalls Caused Pension Debt to Grow for California School Districts.

• Part 4 asks Who Will Pay Pension Cost Increases in the Future?

Grim Fiscal Forecast for CA K12 Education

To say that education funding in California is affected by the broader economic conditions is an understatement. Historically, total state revenue has proven extremely sensitive to the performance of the economy in general, and increasingly, to the performance of equity markets. Given the uncertainties that cloud the fiscal horizon – from high-interest rates to global conflicts  – it is hard to be optimistic about the state’s economy in 2023. And, given the connection between the economy and K12 funding, the outlook for education resources in the coming year isn’t pretty.

In a new paper, OI’s Patrick Murphy, Director of Resource Equity and Public Finance, lays out a rather grim vision of the near-term future for education resources in California. While K12 spending is at an all-time high this year, an economic downturn in 2023 will lead to declines in state revenue and consequently have a negative impact on education funding. 

What causes these dramatic swings in funding?  Proposition 13. Since its passage in 1978, California has had to rely heavily on sales and income taxes to pay for most state programs, as well as a significant portion of K12 education. While California now has the most progressive tax structure of all of the states, it also means that the state has one of the most volatile revenue systems, with total tax collections rising and falling dramatically from one year to the next. 

The paper delves into one of the factors behind the dramatic swing in education funding, Proposition 13, and concludes with a call for California to begin to address its structural fiscal problems. It asks that researchers, policymakers, advocates, and funders to begin to invest in the work of developing policy alternatives to the state’s current revenue structure, with a specific emphasis on reforming Proposition 13. 

Follow The Money: How Will The California Community Schools Partnership Program Planning Grants Be Spent?

Chiara Parisi and Patrick Murphy

With over $4 billion in recent funding, the California Community Schools Partnership Program (CCSPP) has the potential to transform California’s K12 education landscape. The CCSPP represents an opportunity for schools to deepen their commitment to the Science of Learning and Development through practices such as connecting students to mental health support, engaging with families, or providing expanded learning opportunities. This moment has been met with optimism by stakeholders throughout education, including students, families, teachers, and advocates. 

Yet, funding alone will not guarantee that California’s vision for a whole child education system will come to fruition. Resources will be critical, but how they are used will also play a major role in determining the efficacy of the program. This is the second blog in a “Follow the Money” series that takes a close look at the CCSPP grants, examining both who receives funding and how grantees plan to spend those resources. The first round of CCSPP grants have been awarded and Local Education Agencies (LEAs) will begin spending the funds this school year. The goal of this series is to learn in as close to real time as possible how CCSPP funds are being distributed and spent to inform policymakers and support their efforts in improving equity, efficacy, and high quality implementation of the CCSPP. 

This second blog takes a deep dive into planning grants, detailing who received grants, what grantees have proposed to spend their budgets on, and to what extent district or community matches were included in proposed budgets.

Who received a CCSPP planning grant?

The first blog in the series, Follow the Money: Where are the California Community Schools Partnership Program Grants Going?, looked at which LEAs applied for and received CCSPP planning and implementation grants. The piece outlined how the California Department of Education (CDE) received 203 Planning Grant applications and funded 192 of them (95%). Planning grants have a $200,000 maximum award and are restricted to LEAs that identify as not already operating community schools. They are intended to help grantees develop a strategy through a dedicated planning process over the course of two years. And in future years, these grantees are expected to apply for five year implementation grants as well. Of the 192 planning grants that were awarded, 16 went to County Offices of Education, 89 went to districts, and 87 went to charter schools.

As noted in the first post, LEAs—regardless of student enrollment and number of schools—were limited to a single planning grant. So, charter schools and small LEAs are positioned to receive more planning dollars per school site than larger LEAs. This is because individual charter schools are designated as LEAs and Charter Management Organizations (CMOs) were eligible to apply on behalf of multiple charters. For example, Magnolia Science Academy, a CMO, supported the applications for each of its nine Southern California campuses. In total, the nine schools will be able to draw upon $1.8 million in planning resources. On the other hand, large LEAs were limited to a single $200,000 award to plan for all schools.

Overall, the planning grants are flowing to schools that serve a high concentration of unduplicated pupils, including low income students, English learners, foster youth, and homeless youth. While the statewide average for unduplicated pupils is 63%, planning grant applicants had an average of 78% unduplicated pupils. Planning grants are also disproportionately benefitting African American, Latinx, and Asian students. This is in line with the CCSPP’s goal of prioritizing schools that serve students with the greatest level of need.

What will the planning grants be spent on?

In total, the CDE reported planning grant awards of $38,200,122. Not surprisingly, every individual grant was at or near the $200,000 ceiling. Each CCSPP grantee was required to submit a detailed budget for how they proposed to spend their planning grant and the budgets can be sorted into three broad categories: staff, services, and stuff. Staff includes budget items going to personnel to carry out or support the planning effort. Services typically include contracts with third parties for training or planning assistance. And stuff covers expenditures on various types of materials. 

According to the budgets, 75% of the grant resources from this round of grants are proposed to pay for staff, including certificated staff, classified staff, and employee benefits. This funding is going both towards existing staff, for teacher, principal, or superintendent time, and new staff, to hire personnel like a community school coordinator or family engagement specialist. About 20% of the budget is proposed to be spent on services, including budget items like teacher attendance at community schools conferences or specialized training sessions. And roughly 5% of the budget is proposed to go to stuff, including books, supplies, food for meetings, and capital outlays.

In reviewing the brief descriptions that accompanied the application line items, there were certain categories that came up repeatedly. For example, one of the most common budget items among grantees was a Community School Coordinator, or other individual designated to perform a coordinating role. Community School Coordinators work collaboratively with school and district staff to manage community schools programs, initiatives, and funding. Two other often mentioned expenditure items were staff or services related to family and community engagement and professional development. Family engagement allows families and other community members to provide valuable input in the planning stage of a community school, and budget items often appeared as either family liaisons or trainings on family engagement. Professional development costs included conferences, trainings, or participation in community schools collaborative meetings. Finally, a number of applications noted plans to perform a needs assessment, often either through Community School Coordinator staff time or contracted services with third parties. These efforts are designed to help a grantee identify the existing gaps in current programs and the most outstanding school and community needs, providing insight for areas of focus during the implementation stage.

How many grantees are braiding and blending funding?
Though the CCSPP dedicated over $4 billion to community schools, a strong community school strategy is built on braiding and blending multiple revenue streams to support a coherent whole child strategy with shared accountability across child-serving organizations and sectors. For example, community schools often seek to connect families and students to supports that exist beyond the building’s walls (e.g. supports for medical, mental health, or food insecurity needs). However, other existing federal and state programs aim to do the same thing and a community school strategy should aim to leverage the multiple revenue streams available for integrated supports and services. Out of the 192 grantees, 55 included community matches in their proposed budget and 171 included district matches. Only 30 districts included both district and community matches.

The budget item descriptions for matches were often brief, but we can observe that the 55 community matches represented a wide variety of activities. For example, community resources were identified as contributing to childcare for parents at planning meetings, basic supplies, professional development, outside speakers, translation services, and participation by county health administrators or external social workers. The degree of specificity regarding the nature of the funds also varied. While some made generic references to financial or in-kind contributions by a community partner, others identified a specific external grant or individual who would be supporting the planning work.

Similarly, district matches covered a range of expenditures. Several LEA’s referenced district support for a portion of certificated or classified staff salaries. We also saw applicants propose to use district matches to cover the associated benefits for salaries funded through grants. Other budget items funded through district matches included travel costs to attend professional development conferences, training materials, and substitutes to cover release time. Though often not specified, we assume that matches related to personnel costs will draw upon the district’s general fund. In a few cases, the district matches referred to another grant or categorical program. 

Looking ahead 

Planning grants are an important component of the CCSPP, providing an opportunity for LEAs that are new to community schools to spend necessary time and resources on learning and developing thoughtful plans. The robust response to the first round of planning grant awards is encouraging and, through this research, we hope to provide insight into how grantees plan to spend their budgets.

It is important to note, however, the limitations of our review. First, this research is on a collection of plans to plan. We would expect some grantees to depart from these proposals as they get further along in the planning process. Second, the format did not require significant detail, nor were applicants required to reconcile funding amounts with their descriptions or sources (grant, district, or community). There is, therefore, a limit to the precision of the analysis and number of conclusions we can draw. Third, though a review of the budgets tells us how districts plan to spend their funding, it does not give us insight into the quality of that spending. For example, two LEAs could choose to spend their funding on a Community School Coordinator, yet one of those coordinators might have a much deeper understanding of what it takes to run a successful community school than the other. Characteristics of high quality community schools, like cultures of trust, shared purpose, and collaboration, are typically not reflected in grant proposals. 

Despite these limitations, this research surfaces questions for current and future rounds of CCSPP planning grants, such as:

• Can future grant rounds be restructured to better balance the planning resources relative to single charter schools, small LEAs, and large LEAs? 

• What should determine whether an LEA already operates a community school, thus barring them from applying for a planning grant? And should LEAs that already have one or more community schools up and running still be eligible to apply for planning grants before committing to expansion? 

• Does the current mix of budget items, with an emphasis on staff and Community School Coordinators, look about right? Or should applicants be encouraged to consider committing to other components of planning such as needs assessments or family and community engagement? 

• Should applicants be asked to seek out more, and more specific, community matches? Could the application process serve as the impetus to pursue and obtain strong commitments from the district and community more broadly?

• How can the technical assistance centers support planning grant recipients? Given that it would appear that California schools are about to designate a large number of new Community School Coordinators, how can technical assistance be provided to this cohort specifically? 

• At the end of these nearly 200 planning efforts, will an attempt be made to extract lessons learned to inform future schools and districts considering building out a community school?

We hope this research provides some top-line descriptors as to how planning grant funding will be spent and provides CDE staff, lawmakers, researchers, and advocates an opportunity to assess progress towards the goals of the CCSPP.  In the next blog, the Opportunity Institute will look at implementation grants, similarly digging into how they were distributed, how grantees plan to spend their funds, and to what extent district or community matches were included in the proposed budgets. 

We would like to extend a special thank you to Sivan Orr, who made significant contributions to the data collection for this project, and the Community School Learning Exchange (CSLX), for their valuable input as part of our writing process.

Follow the Money: Where are the California Community Schools Partnership Program Grants Going?

By Henry O’Connell

In 2021, the state of California allocated an unprecedented $3 billion in grant funding over a seven year period to support the California Community Schools Partnership Program (CCSPP). A year later, the state invested an additional $1.1 billion in the program. The historic investments signal California’s strong commitment to community schools — and there is reason to believe these investments could pay off. When implemented with fidelity, research shows that a community schools approach can boost student outcomes. However, successfully operating a community schools program of this magnitude will require significant planning and high quality implementation. 

This is the first post of a blog series that will take a close look at the CCSPP (and other state and federal investments in education and children), examining both who receives funding and on what funding is spent. The first round of CCSPP grants were announced in May 2022 and Local Education Agencies (LEAs) and schools will begin spending the funds this school year. The goal is to learn in real time how CCSPP funds are being distributed and spent in the hopes of supporting policymakers in ensuring equity, efficacy, and high quality implementation of current and future grants. 

This first blog looks at which LEAs and schools applied for and received CCSPP planning grants, to help districts plan for a community school, and implementation grants, to launch, sustain, or expand programming for a community school.

Who applied for these grants?

LEAs and schools demonstrated high interest in the program despite the timeline for applying being relatively short. The California Department of Education (CDE) received 293 applications for CCSPP planning and implementation grants, with some applications including multiple districts that applied together as a consortium. In total, 384 different LEAs applied for funding and listed 1,053 schools in their grant applications, representing nearly 10 percent of California’s public schools. Applicants came from 46 of the state’s 58 counties. The counties without applicants were more often sparsely populated counties such as Alpine, Sierra, and Mariposa, though a few of the state’s more populous counties, including Ventura, Stanislaus, and Solano also did not have any LEAs that applied.

On average, schools that applied for CCSPP grants enrolled a higher needs population than non applicants as measured by their unduplicated counts of students who are low-income, English learners, homeless, or foster youth. In particular, students enrolled in schools that applied for CCSPP funds were much more likely to be low income, English learners, or experiencing homelessness. 

Which applicants received funding?

The state had the resources to fund most applicants. However, CDE received more interest in the implementation grant program than expected, and ultimately prioritized funding schools that enrolled at least 80% high-needs students. Overall, 91% of applications were funded (268 of 293), however, some only received partial funding. Planning grant applications were approved at higher rates (95%) than implementation grant applications (84%). CDE approved 192 planning grants totalling $38,200,122 and 76 implementation grants for  $611,087,500. 

CDE lists all 458 school sites receiving implementation grants—a full list of grantees can be found here. While CDE lists 192 LEAs that received planning grants, a dozen additional LEAs should benefit since they are supported by a lead applicant who received funding. For example, the Fresno County Office of Education applied on behalf of three Unified School Districts in Fresno County. While Fresno County was listed as the grantee by CDE, students enrolled in Washington, Sierra, and Mendota Unified School Districts should benefit from the planning grant.  

Who are the students that will benefit from the first round of grants?

The grants appear to be flowing to schools that serve a high concentration of students with the highest needs. 90% of students who are enrolled in schools that received implementation grants are unduplicated pupils, meaning they’re either low income, English learners, or foster youth. This is significantly higher than the statewide unduplicated pupil average of 63%. Planning Grants are also flowing to LEAs that serve a higher than average percentage of unduplicated pupils (79%). This is in line with the CCSPP’s goal of prioritizing schools that serve students with the greatest level of need.

Implementation grants also appear to be benefitting a disproportionately large share of African American (8%) and Hispanic or Latino students (74%) as compared to statewide averages for both groups. Asian (11%) and Hispanic or Latino students (62%) are also a slightly larger share than statewide averages for both groups  among planning grant recipients.

Where in California is the money going?

The CCSPP grants are flowing across the state, but non-rural schools and LEAs, charter management organizations (CMOs), and small school districts may be the biggest winners.

Schools and LEA’s in rural locales applied for grants at roughly the same rate as all other schools and LEA’s statewide. However, when we looked at which applicants received funding, rural schools fared relatively poorly. Table 3 shows the success rates for applicants in different types of locales, and Maps 2 and 3 show the locations of grantees.

This is surprising, since the CDE and community schools advocates have made funding small and rural schools a priority.

The planning grant program has a $200,000 maximum grant and is restricted to LEAs who do not currently operate community schools. Since charter schools are designated as individual LEAs, CMOs are eligible to apply on behalf of multiple sites. For example, Magnolia Science Academy applied for and was awarded planning grants of $200,000 for each of their 9 campuses in Southern California. On the other hand, large LEAs were limited to a single $200,000 award to plan for all schools. This rule means that CMOs and other small LEAs received more planning dollars per school site than larger LEAs. Also, LEAs that operate even a single community school were ineligible to apply for planning grants, even though some larger school districts and county offices of education may have benefitted from a mix of planning and implementation grants.

How many new community schools were funded by CCSPP grants?

Implementation grants are available to help launch new community schools, or to sustain or expand programming in existing community schools. We found that most of the implementation grantees already self-identified as community schools; 48% of grants will help existing community schools expand their programming and 20% of grants will help existing community schools continue operations. The remaining 32% of implementation grants will go toward launching 144 new community schools.

Planning grants were restricted to LEAs that do not currently operate community schools, and are intended to help them prepare to launch new community schools. These grantees are expected to apply for implementation grants in future years.

Looking ahead

CCSPP represents a historic investment in the future of California public education. We hope that by shedding light on who applied for and received funding, we can help policymakers and advocates continue to improve the program. We invite CDE staff, state lawmakers, researchers, and advocates to consider how this research may inform both short-term improvements to the CCSPP grant process and the state’s long-term commitment to community schools. 

Short-term questions about the CCSPP application process and evaluation criteria:

• Should the application process or evaluation criteria be adjusted for future rounds of CCSPP grants to ensure an equitable distribution of funds to different parts of the state, including rural communities? 

• Do the current application eligibility rules advantage Charter Management Organizations (CMOs) and smaller LEAs over larger LEAs? 

• Should policymakers prioritize creating new community schools, expanding programming, or sustaining operations with CCSPP funds? Over two-thirds of implementation grants this cycle helped existing community schools sustain or expand programming, while one-third helped launch new community schools.

This blog focused on who applied for and received planning and implementation grants. Next, the Opportunity Institute will look at how districts propose to spend their CCSPP grants. Though this program is in its earliest days and spending priorities and strategies may shift over time, we believe it is worth examining how districts are currently planning to spend their grants to support community schools. This will be part of a longer-term effort to understand the link between investments, spending strategies, and — ultimately — student outcomes. Stay tuned!

Why Expanded Learning Partnerships are Essential to Achieving Equity in School Reopening

No Longer Optional: Expanded Learning in School Reopening

Reopening schools in this chaotic environment in ways that center equity will unquestionably require an all-hands-on-deck approach. The massive task schools have in front of them is far beyond the capacity and resources they have at their disposal, and the systems of support they typically rely on are just as strained. While it is considered best practice during more normal times, it is now imperative that schools immediately and proactively reach out to partners in the community to enrich learning experiences for students, especially for students who have been most negatively affected by the pandemic.

Learn more in this brief, collaboratively produced with the Partnership for Children and Youth.

No Longer Optional:

Why and How Expanded Learning Partnerships are Essential to Achieving Equity in School Reopening and Recovery