	Background

The 21st Century program is authorized to provide a wide range of  activities for K-12 students and their families to:  1.  provide opportunities for academic enrichment, including providing  tutorial services to help students—particularly students who attend  low-performing schools—meet state and local academic standards in  core subjects such as reading and mathematics;  2.  offer students a broad array of additional services, such as drug and  violence prevention, counseling, art, music, recreation, and  technology programs that are designed to reinforce and complement  instruction in the regular school day; and  3.  offer literacy and related educational development opportunities to  families of students served. States, in turn, competitively award funds to sub-grantees, which may be  school districts or community-based organizations, such as those that  focus on youth development. States Use a Variety of Criteria to Award Sub-grants for 21st Century Program Centers, Which Use Funds to Provide a Broad Array of Services

		States Use Varied Criteria, Funding Periods, and Amounts for Sub-grants to 21st Century Program Providers

Together states received more than 4,000 21st Century sub-grant  applications and funded nearly 60 percent of them (about 2,400) in their  most recent sub-grant competitions, according to our survey of all 50  states and the District of Columbia. These  state evaluations—from New Jersey, Texas, and Washington—examined  behavioral outcomes such as school-day attendance and discipline. Alignment of Performance Measures with Program Objectives

Education’s current performance measures were established in 1998. In particular,  Education officials told us they have not substantially revised  performance measures since 1998 in part because the program’s  authorization lapsed from 2008 through 2016, with ESSA providing  funding authorization starting in fiscal year 2017. Specifically, without measures for student behavioral  and socio-emotional outcomes, Education lacks useful data on the extent  to which the program is achieving its stated objectives, especially in areas  where the program is likely to have positive effects on student outcomes. Further, leading practices in performance management  call for agencies to use performance information as the basis for decision  making. Education’s Technical Assistance Does Not Yet Adequately Address Many States’ Challenges in Evaluating and Sustaining Programs States Reported Mixed Reviews on Education’s Technical Assistance for Evaluating their 21st Century Programs

States in our survey gave mixed reviews on the usefulness of Education’s  technical assistance for developing and conducting state-level  evaluations. Further, 40 states commented in our survey that they face challenges in  evaluating sub-grantee performance that may limit their capacity to  conduct high-quality evaluations. According to Education officials, it has not provided written guidance to  states on 21st Century program evaluations since 1999, when it provided  states non-regulatory guidance in the form of a guide to help them  evaluate their programs and use the results to make program  improvements. Specifically, the program was  reauthorized twice, resulting in changes to requirements for measuring  and evaluating program performance. Federal standards for internal control state that when significant changes  occur in how an agency achieves its objectives it should periodically  review policies and procedures for continued relevance and effectiveness  in achieving its objectives or addressing related risks. Absent new written, non-regulatory guidance to  states that addresses the areas in which they struggle most, Education  may miss opportunities to help states improve their capacity to conduct  high-quality evaluations and ultimately improve their programs. Further, as we stated,  research has shown that 21st Century programs more often have positive  effects on student attendance and reducing disciplinary incidents than on  improving students’ academic outcomes. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Our study of the 21st Century program was framed around four  objectives: (1) how 21st Century funds are awarded and used, (2) what is  known about the effectiveness of 21st Century programs, (3) the extent to  which Education has effectively managed and used program data to  inform decisions about the 21st Century program, and (4) the extent to  which Education’s technical assistance has helped states assess and  sustain high-quality programs once 21st Century funding ends. We  received responses from all 50 states and the District of Columbia for a  100 percent response rate.
Why GAO Did This Study

Education's 21st Century program—funded about $1 billion annually since 2002—supports a broad array of activities outside the school day to improve student outcomes in high-poverty or low-performing K-12 schools. A statement accompanying the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2015 included a provision for GAO to review Education programs outside the regular school day.
GAO examined (1) how 21st Century funds are awarded and used, (2) what is known about the effectiveness of these programs, (3) how Education manages and uses program data to inform decision making, and (4) Education's technical assistance for evaluating and sustaining programs. GAO conducted a 50-state survey of program officials, obtaining a 100 percent response rate. GAO also reviewed selected state program evaluations and academic studies on student outcomes, and observed program activities and interviewed officials in four states representing a range of grant size and location.

What GAO Found

The Department of Education (Education) awards 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st Century) grants to states, who in turn, competitively award funds to local organizations, which use them to offer academic enrichment and other activities to improve students' academic and behavioral outcomes. In their most recent grant competitions, states awarded 21st Century funds to nearly 2,400 organizations—including school districts and community-based organizations—based on a variety of criteria, such as the quality of their proposed program designs. Relevant research we reviewed that compared program participants to those of non-participants suggests that the 21st Century program is effective in improving students' behavioral outcomes, such as school-day attendance and reduced disciplinary incidents, more often than their academic outcomes. However, because Education's current 21st Century performance measures primarily focus on students' reading and math scores on state tests, Education lacks useful data about whether the program is achieving its objectives to improve students' behavioral outcomes such as attendance and discipline—the areas where the program most frequently has a positive effect. Education officials have not substantially revised the program's performance measures since 1998, in part because its authorization lapsed from fiscal years 2008 through 2016. Leading practices in performance measurement call for federal agencies to align performance measures with program objectives.
Education's technical assistance to states does not adequately address challenges states face in evaluating their 21st Century programs and sustaining them when program funding ends. About a third of states reported in GAO's 50-state survey that they face challenges in evaluating program performance, such as difficulty designing evaluations that shed light on program effects. Further, the 21st Century program was reauthorized twice, which resulted in significant changes to state requirements for evaluating programs. However, Education has not provided states written guidance on developing and conducting high-quality evaluations since 1999. Federal standards for internal control state that when significant changes occur agencies should periodically review policies for continued relevance and effectiveness in achieving their objectives. Absent written guidance to states on conducting high-quality evaluations, Education may miss opportunities to help states improve their capacity to conduct such evaluations to assure the program is meeting its goals.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making four recommendations, including that Education expand its performance measures for behavioral outcomes and provide written guidance to states on conducting high-quality program evaluations. Education neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendations, and outlined steps it is taking to address them.