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!