By Andrés Fernandez Vergara, UCLA Center for Community Schooling
In May 2024, California’s State Board of Education approved a third round of implementation grants for the California Community Schools Partnership Program (CCSPP), bringing the total number of funded community schools to 2,018 statewide. The CCSPP provides support to Local Education Agencies (LEAs) and school sites to reimagine and transform schools into inclusive, racially just, and relationship-centered environments that prepare all youth for positive social and emotional development, engaged citizenship, and deep learning. Additionally, as identified in the California Community Schools Framework, the CCSPP is an explicitly equity-driven initiative that promotes community schools as a coherence strategy aligning and coordinating initiatives across the educational system.
Supported by an unprecedented $4.1 billion investment, the CCSPP provides four distinct grant opportunities: Planning, Implementation, Coordination, and Technical Assistance. Implementation Grants (IGs) are directed to LEAs to support establishing, expanding, or strengthening school-level implementation.
This blog post, part of the California Community Schools in Action blog series, provides an overview of IG allocations from all three rounds of funding. Based on a landscape analysis of CCSPP Cohort 1-3 award data, it also offers a closer look at the schools and communities benefiting from these grants, highlighting the impact of this transformative strategy on California’s public education landscape. To develop this analysis, we merged the datasets from CDE public databases with CCSPP grantee award and implementation datasets.
How are CCSPP Implementation Grants distributed across California?
By 2024-25, CCSPP implementation grants, across three cohorts, had reached a total of 2,018 schools across California (see Table 1).
The CCSPP’s Request for Applications (RFA) operationalizes school needs based on the Unduplicated Pupil Count (UPC), which is the percentage of students who are identified as socioeconomically disadvantaged, English learners, and/or youth in foster care. The RFA establishes a priority for those schools with more than 80% UPC. In the chart below (Figure 1), we present the percentage of those priority schools across the State that have received IGs. It is important to note that in practice, the 80% UPC threshold was reduced in particular cases of high needs. For example, a reduced threshold of 70% UPC was established for rural schools for Cohorts 1 and 3. For Cohort 2, the general threshold was lowered to 68% UPC, and 58% for rural schools. Based on the original definition of priority schools (UPC of 80% or more), the allocation methods have resulted in nearly 40% of all priority schools across California receiving CCSPP funds to transition into community schools.
In terms of the distribution, Figure 2 illustrates that CCSPP IGs are represented in every geographic region across California.
When examining the percentage of priority schools funded relative to the total number of priority schools, northern counties generally have a higher proportion of priority schools compared to southern counties (these counties are shaded a darker blue on the map to the left). However, in total numbers, southern counties have a greater number of CCSPP-funded schools. As shown on the map to the right, southern counties are depicted by the darker blue shading because they have larger numbers of CCSPP-funded schools. Together, these maps highlight the statewide reach of CCSPP funding, which extends to priority schools in nearly every county except three. This is attributable to the competitive priorities set by legislation, the CDE, and the State Board of Education in the RFA, to ensure equity-oriented policy making. For example, as described above, the CDE took rurality into account when defining “high need” and lowered the UPC threshold in these regions to promote equitable grant distribution.
Who is being served by CCSPP Implementation Grants?
To better understand the reach and diversity of the schools funded by the CCSPP, it is helpful to examine how IGs are distributed across different types of schools and communities. Figure 3 displays a series of charts depicting the diversity of schools funded by the CCSPP. These charts present the distribution of schools by grades served (elementary, middle, high school, and others), by type of management system (charter, traditional public), and by rurality (city, suburban, town, rural).
Figure 3 demonstrates that schools most in need vary dramatically across cohorts, as does school participation. In the case of management type, across cohorts, the percentage of charter schools grew from 9% to 16% to 18%. In terms of rurality, we see that the percentage of urban-based schools decreased from 52% to 40% to 32%. In addition, when examining grades served, we see that the percentage of elementary schools decreased from 60% to 58% to 55%. Given these analyses, which align with the broader landscape across the State, CCSPP participants are largely represented by traditional (non-charters), urban, elementary schools. For reference, these data align with the overall distribution of schools across California, where approximately 12% are charter schools, 57% are elementary schools, and 38% are urban-based schools. However, as our analysis demonstrates, diversity has increased across each cohort, in large part due to equity-centered policymaking and the effective outreach of Regional Technical Assistance Centers.
When analyzing who is served by CCSPP-funded schools, a range of student populations are represented. Figure 4 shows the average percentage of students supported by CCSPP IGs from various marginalized groups, including socioeconomically disadvantaged students, English learners, students with disabilities, with migrant status, and youth in foster care or experiencing homelessness.
Across all three cohorts, CCSPP grants are primarily allocated to schools that serve high percentages of socioeconomically disadvantaged students. On average, these CCSPP-funded schools also support a significant proportion of English learners, with approximately 35% of their student population in this category, as well as approximately 15% of students identified as having disabilities. This targeted distribution underscores the program’s commitment to supporting schools that serve historically underserved and marginalized student populations.
Finally, Figure 5 presents four baseline indicators for schools in the year prior to receiving CCSPP IG funding for each cohort. For Cohort 1, this includes 2021-22 data; for Cohort 2, 2022-23 data; and for Cohort 3, 2023-24 data. These indicators reflect the average for each cohort in terms of high school graduation rates, the percentage of students meeting level 3 or level 4 in the Summative English Language Proficiency Assessments for California (ELPAC) standards for 3rd grade, as well as chronic absenteeism and dropout rates.
Our analysis shows that baseline data is generally consistent across cohorts, with one notable exception: chronic absenteeism. Grantees in Cohort 1 reported significantly higher rates of chronic absenteeism prior to receiving CCSPP funding compared to those in the other two cohorts, while cohort 2 grantees reported higher rates than cohort 3. This finding should be interpreted with caution as it reflects trends that existed prior to the receipt of CCSPP funding. As a baseline analysis, it is not intended to evaluate the impact of the grant implementation. (For more information about the trends of chronic absenteeism in California, read an analysis conducted by the Policy Analysis for California Education.)
What does this landscape analysis reveal?
This landscape analysis seeks to answer a central question: how is funding for the CCSPP being distributed to support schools and students across the state? Due to the complexity of this question, the analysis examines each dimension separately to provide a clear understanding of the distribution.
The data reveals that priority schools—those with the greatest need—are receiving a significant portion of the funding, with nearly 40% of these high-need schools benefiting from the program. Additionally, the grants are reaching priority schools in both urban and rural areas, ensuring that this strategy supports diverse geographic communities. Charter schools, K-12 schools, and other varied school types are also represented among the grant recipients. Despite shifts across cohorts, most funding continues to support traditional (non-charter), urban, and elementary schools.
These priority schools serve student populations that are predominantly from groups requiring additional resources and support. This includes socioeconomically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, English learners, and others who face systemic challenges. Educational indicators at these schools often fall below expectations, as reflected in metrics such as graduation rates, absenteeism, test scores, and dropout rates. The CCSPP grants aim to address these disparities by providing targeted supports to schools and communities most in need.
This analysis underscores the transformative potential of the CCSPP in addressing systemic inequities in education. By prioritizing funding for schools that serve the state’s most underserved students, the program not only bridges resource gaps but also fosters environments where all students can thrive. The equitable distribution of grants across diverse school types and geographic regions highlights a commitment to reaching communities that have historically been marginalized. As the program continues to evolve, its success will depend on sustaining this focus and ensuring that funding translates into meaningful, measurable outcomes for students and families. Ultimately, the CCSPP serves as a powerful model of how targeted investment in education can create pathways to opportunity, equity, and lasting change.
