By: Andrés Fernandez-Vergara & Marisa Saunders, UCLA Center for Community Schooling, California State Transformational Assistance Center
California’s $4.1 billion investment in community schools represents one of the most significant equity-driven education initiatives in state history. With nearly 2,500 schools funded across four rounds of Implementation Grants, the California Community Schools Partnership Program (CCSPP) is more than a pilot effort–it is a statewide strategy for strengthening schools and communities. As policymakers consider the initiative’s future, understanding where these funds have gone, whom they serve, and early implementation efforts is essential.
Drawing on California Department of Education (CDE) public data and CCSPP award and implementation records, we examine the extent to which the initiative is reaching the schools and students it was designed to serve and building the conditions necessary for long-term, sustainable impact.
A Strategy at Scale
Across four funding rounds, the CCSPP has grown significantly—from 457 schools in Cohort 1, it has reached 2,495 schools in its fourth cohort (see Table 1). Growth has been strategic. Across each cohort, state leadership has pivoted, adjusted eligibility thresholds, and outreach efforts to broaden participation while maintaining a clear equity focus. As we discuss below, these efforts have channeled resources to a growing number and diverse set of schools across the state.
Today, CCSPP schools span every region of California—from dense urban centers to rural counties. Overall, Southern counties represent the largest number of funded schools, while Northern counties show high proportions of “priority” schools funded relative to their totals—evidence of both scale and intentional targeting (see Figure 1).
Across the four cohorts, nearly half (47%) of all California schools meeting the original priority definition have received Implementation Grants. This definition considers schools in which 80% or more of students are included in the Unduplicated Pupil Count (i.e., identified as low-income, English learners, or foster youth).
Who is Being Funded and How That Has Shifted Over Time
CCSPP funding has reached a diverse cross-section of California schools, including charter and non-charter schools, elementary through high schools, and schools serving both urban and rural communities.
As shown in Figure 3, charter school participation increased from 9% in Cohort 1 to 17% in Cohort 3, before declining to 10% in Cohort 4. Notably, charter representation in Cohorts 2 and 3 exceeded the statewide share of charter schools (13%).
Across cohorts, traditional public, urban, and elementary schools remain the most represented categories, mirroring their prevalence statewide. However, participation has gradually expanded across grade spans and school types. While elementary schools continue to account for the largest share of grantees—consistent with their statewide proportion (60%)—the initiative has increasingly included other school models.
In particular, schools grouped in the “Other” category—including Alternative, Continuation, Community Day, K–12, and Special Education schools—have grown from 10% of grantees in Cohort 1 to 15% in Cohort 4, matching their overall share of schools statewide.
Geographic representation also shifted across cohorts. The percentage of urban schools decreased from 51% in Cohort 1 to 36% in Cohort 4, reflecting intentional efforts to broaden geographic reach. Adjustments to grant priority thresholds helped increase participation among rural schools and diversify the initiative’s footprint.
Serving Students with the Greatest Need
By design, the CCSPP targets California’s most prioritized schools. Data shows that it is accomplishing this. Awarded schools serve significantly higher shares of socioeconomically disadvantaged students than the statewide average. Across cohorts, the average percentage of socioeconomically disadvantaged students in funded schools far exceeds the state average of approximately 65%.
These schools also serve a larger share of English learners. Over the past three cohorts, English learners have made up roughly 31% of students in funded schools, compared with a statewide average of about 21%.
Baseline data further highlight the level of need among participating schools. Across cohorts, funded schools entered the initiative with challenges reflected in graduation rates, English language proficiency, chronic absenteeism, and dropout rates.
These baseline data show that participating schools began the initiative facing significant hurdles, particularly among the early cohorts affected by the pandemic. Again, decisions were made to ensure funding reached schools confronting these deep, structural inequities.
Implementation Trends
Scale and targeting matter; implementation determines the impact. Beyond this overview of grant distribution, three years of implementation data show that these high-need schools are strengthening the conditions that make community schools work: deeper partnerships with families and community organizations, more coordinated whole-child supports, stronger alignment between school and district systems, and greater use of data for continuous improvement (read more here). These trends suggest that sites are not merely launching new programs, but building the relational and organizational infrastructure required for sustained implementation and transformation.
Continued investment can reinforce and deepen systems that are already taking root in schools serving students with the greatest needs. While long-term impacts require continued study, early signals are aligned with what implementation research predicts: when schools strengthen relationships, coordinate supports, and align systems, student outcomes improve.
What This Means at a Pivotal Moment
The data suggest that CCSPP funding has largely reached schools serving students with the greatest needs, expanded across diverse geographic regions, and grown more inclusive across school types over time. Equity-centered design, from UPC thresholds to rural adjustments, has shaped how funds were distributed and who has been able to participate. This matters.
Communities facing concentrated poverty and systemic inequities require sustained investment, not short-term experimentation. The progress visible today reflects years of intentional design, adaptive leadership, and local commitment. Deepening and expanding this effort will allow schools to move from building foundations to realizing full transformation.
California made a bold investment. The evidence suggests it is aligned with need, gaining traction, and showing promise. This investment is also part of a larger, coordinated state strategy to support thriving students, families, and communities. In addition to CCSPP, California has made significant commitments to expanding learning time, providing universal school meals, and strengthening college and career pathways through initiatives such as Golden State Pathways. Together, these efforts reflect a whole-child, whole-family approach—one that recognizes that academic success is deeply connected to health, stability, opportunity, and community. The next step is clear: stay the course, strengthen the infrastructure, and continue reaching the students and communities who need it most.
