Chapter 4: Applying for Funding Step-by-Step

We’re not going to sugarcoat it. Securing grants to fund expanded learning programs takes a lot of work. For many school districts, these grants are the lifeline that allows them to serve students after school with academic support, enrichment, and a safe environment. In California, three primary funding streams make this possible: the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELO-P), the After School Education and Safety (ASES) program, and 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC). Each has distinct requirements, application timelines, and compliance rules, but all share a common purpose: to expand the learning day and provide high-quality enrichment to students in need.

This chapter offers a practical, narrative-style guide on preparing your grant applications step by step. Whether you are applying for the first time or renewing an existing program, these guidelines will help you craft a compelling proposal that aligns with state and federal priorities, meets compliance obligations, and addresses local student needs. You will also learn about common pitfalls and the importance of thorough planning, stakeholder engagement, and realistic budgeting. Ultimately, your goal is to create a clear, evidence-based application that convinces reviewers—and your own community—that you are poised to deliver a powerful expanded learning program.

Understanding the Funding Landscape

The “Impossible Situation” of Future Forecasting

When you write a multi-year grant proposal, you might feel you’re being asked to predict the future. How do you forecast exact staffing costs, enrollment patterns, or student needs for three to five years down the line? The anxiety is real, especially when a miscalculation could jeopardize renewal or subject you to audits. A key strategy is to build in flexible language that anticipates potential shifts: for instance, indicating that you will “adjust staffing levels” or “partner with multiple vendors” as student demographics evolve. Grant reviewers often appreciate seeing that you have a contingency plan, so long as you stay within the funding guidelines.

Strategic Insight

When in doubt, emphasize your district’s capacity to pivot. For example, if your grant requires a certain ratio of staff to students, highlight your established partnerships with community-based organizations that can help you ramp up staffing quickly if attendance surges.

ELO-P: A Flexible State Entitlement

Unlike a typical competitive grant, ELO-P funding is allocated to all eligible districts by formula. But, it is not a simple “automatic deposit” in your budget. Each year, you must declare whether you will run an ELO-P or opt out, and you are expected to create or update a comprehensive plan explaining exactly how you will meet the nine-hour day requirement and offer at least thirty days of summer programming.

Although it is not scored the way competitive grants are, ELO-P still demands comprehensive planning. LEAs must show how they will provide academic support, enrichment, and a safe environment aligned to California’s Quality Standards for Expanded Learning. The program’s compliance is monitored through yearly audits, emphasizing the importance of accurate attendance tracking and thorough documentation of hours served.

ASES: A Competitive State Grant for K–8

If you have ever tried to align ASES requirements (mandatory 6:00 PM end time and a 1:3 local match) with ELO-P’s nine-hour day requirement and 21st CCLC’s family-engagement component, you know each program has unique demands that do not always sync neatly. Sometimes it feels like the state and federal rules conflict—especially when the official guidance from the California Department of Education (CDE) does not offer a clear solution.

Administered by the California Department of Education (CDE), the After School Education and Safety program is funded by state dollars to serve elementary and middle school students from kindergarten through grade nine (though typically K–8 sites apply). The ASES grant is awarded through a competitive process, with priority going to schools in high-poverty areas or those demonstrating significant academic need.

Unlike ELO-P, ASES has a defined annual or triennial Request for Applications (RFA), and prospective grantees must submit formal proposals by a deadline—often early in the calendar year for funding that begins the following fiscal year. The program requires a 1:3 local match (one dollar in local resources for every three grant dollars) and mandates a minimum of fifteen hours per week of after-school programming, remaining open until at least 6:00 PM on school days. If you are an existing grantee, you may need to submit a renewal application every three years, updating your program plan and addressing how you have maintained or improved quality.

21st CCLC: Federally Funded, State-Administered

Reality Check
At the time of writing this book, the program’s funding has been frozen at about $1.329 billion in recent budget proposals. In other words, Congress is considering keeping 21st CCLC at last year’s funding level instead of increasing it. With inflation and higher operating costs, flat funding may impact how much students can be served – advocates warn programs may have to cut back hours or activities, or even close sites, without additional support.

The 21st Century Community Learning Centers program—sometimes called Nita M. Lowey 21st CCLC—is the only dedicated federal funding stream for after-school and expanded learning. In California, these funds are awarded through periodic competitive competitions run by the CDE. The program supports academic enrichment and family literacy, focusing on students in high-poverty or low-performing schools. Since 21st CCLC is federal, eligible applicants include not just LEAs but also municipalities, faith-based organizations, nonprofits, and higher education institutions (in partnership with target schools).

Compared to ASES, 21st CCLC has no local match requirement, though many applicants strengthen their proposals by highlighting other sources of support or additional funding they will leverage. Application windows generally occur on a multi-year cycle. If you miss the application period—or if the federal budget has not appropriated new funding—you may have to wait for the next round or a supplemental RFA that sometimes appears if funds are reallocated.

Laying the Groundwork: Needs and Readiness

Reality Check
Many grant-writing resources assume you already have robust data systems and a wealth of stakeholder engagement. In reality, you might be a small or mid-size district juggling multiple responsibilities with limited staff. The question is, how do you develop a compelling needs assessment quickly and efficiently?

Assessing Local Needs

Many grants, especially ASES and 21st CCLC, will ask you to demonstrate why your particular site or LEA requires after-school funding. Grant reviewers may expect a data-driven portrait of your district’s unique challenges. But, what if your district’s student information system does not neatly track after-school participation or academic performance by subgroups? You can still gather qualitative data from parents and students or look at your free/reduced-price meal rates, discipline records, and informal feedback from after-school staff to strengthen your narrative.

Strong applications blend quantitative data—such as academic test scores, demographics, free/reduced-price meal percentages, and attendance trends—with qualitative insights, such as surveys or focus group feedback from parents, teachers, and students themselves. If your district already operates an after-school program, consult your staff. They can offer firsthand accounts of student engagement, academic gaps, and program successes or challenges.

This local needs assessment must then flow logically into your program design. For instance, if your data shows a large proportion of English learners struggling with literacy, you will likely want to propose a research-based reading intervention and additional English language support in your expanded learning program. If parents cite concerns about after-school supervision, you can detail how a structured program, open until 6:00 PM, offers a safe environment. This “problem-solution” alignment is crucial for convincing reviewers (or, in the case of ELO-P, your district’s leadership and auditors) that you have a compelling rationale.

Planning for Capacity and Compliance

Securing a grant is only the beginning; you must also have the capacity to implement it. ASES and 21st CCLC have specific minimum requirements, such as maintaining a 20:1 student-to-staff ratio, offering a nutritious snack or meal, and providing daily academic support. ELO-P demands that districts expand service to cover nine hours total between the school day and after school for TK–6, plus a summer program of at least thirty days. These obligations require careful consideration of staffing, training, facility usage, and—especially—attendance tracking.

Before you ever fill in an application field, take stock of your team’s readiness. Do you have enough qualified staff or will you partner with a community-based organization to supply additional instructors? Is your fiscal department prepared to handle the grant accounting and produce the necessary attendance or cost reports? If not, outline the specific steps you will take to fill those gaps, whether that is hiring new staff, reallocating existing personnel, or forging new community partnerships.

Securing Community and Board Support

For programs like ASES and ELO-P, some grants require board approval or partnership letters. Beyond that, if your principals and teachers aren’t on board, your program can struggle with referrals and day-to-day coordination. Communicate early and clearly about how you see the after-school program enhancing—not competing with—the regular school day. By weaving your application process into your broader district planning, you can more easily gain buy-in that sets the stage for long-term success.

Drafting the Application Narrative

Reframe the Challenge
Think of your application as strategic program design, not just paperwork. Each section of the narrative is an opportunity to articulate your vision, align it with your district’s broader goals, and illustrate how you will leverage multiple funding streams cohesively.

ELO-P Plans: Aligning to Local Needs and State Quality Standards

Because ELO-P funds are allocated by formula, you might assume you can simply sign up and receive the funding. In reality, you must develop a substantive plan describing exactly how your district will use the funds and measure success. This plan typically includes sections on program goals, schedules, partnership strategies, and evaluation methods. Though you are not competing against other districts, you do need to demonstrate alignment with ELO-P’s stated objectives: academic and enrichment opportunities, safe and supervised environments, and attention to students who need extra support.

Be explicit about what your daily or weekly schedule will look like—for instance, an academic hour followed by enrichment clubs that spark students’ creativity or physical fitness. Make sure to address any required components such as providing summer programming of at least thirty days, ensuring staff training aligns with quality standards, and including social-emotional supports if your local data points to that need. If you are using ELO-P funds at middle or high schools after you have met TK–6 requirements (as the law allows), explain how and why those older students will benefit.

ASES Proposals: A Focus on Safety, Academics, and Partnerships

When applying for ASES, remember that the program was founded by Proposition 49 with dual aims: providing safe after-school environments and boosting students’ academic outcomes. It is a competitive grant, which means your narrative must stand out. The best proposals tightly connect local needs and program solutions. If you serve a high-poverty community, illustrate how your after-school program will keep students safe by offering consistent staff oversight until 6:00 PM. If academics are a concern, detail your homework support structures, tutoring partnerships, and alignment to the school-day curriculum.

ASES reviewers will also look for strong collaborative efforts between the applicant LEA and any community-based organizations. Emphasize how these partners enrich programming with specialized expertise—maybe a local arts center runs a dance club, or the city’s parks department leads sports and recreation. Many ASES applicants stumble on the 1:3 match requirement. Get creative. In-kind facility usage, volunteer time, or city and county resources can all count—just make sure you accurately document them so you’re not left scrambling come audit time. Finally, weave in how you will measure success, such as tracking improved attendance or monitoring reading level gains for participating students.

21st CCLC: Federal Priorities for High-Need Schools

Though 21st CCLC in California is overseen by the same Expanded Learning Division that manages ASES, it has distinct federal goals. These revolve around academic enrichment, support for at-risk youth, and engagement of families in literacy and educational development. If you plan to submit a 21st CCLC application in the next available competition, study the RFA’s scoring rubric and ensure your program narrative addresses each section: needs assessment, proposed activities, staffing, partnership strategies, and evaluation.

Explain clearly how you will provide meaningful academic assistance that aligns to state standards, such as a structured tutoring block or project-based activities in STEM or literacy. Describe your approach to family involvement—perhaps through evening workshops or online resources—so that parents and guardians become active partners in student learning. Demonstrate that you can operate the required hours (at least fifteen hours per week, with a before-school or summer component if requested) and sustain the program even as federal funding may taper or require reapplication after several years.

Crafting a Realistic Budget

Matching Funds for ASES and Budget Distribution

ASES requires a local match equal to one-third of the state grant, which can come from a variety of sources—district in-kind contributions, city or county agencies, nonprofits, and more. Ensure that your budget table clearly identifies these matching contributions and that the calculations are accurate. For instance, if you request $150,000 in ASES funds, your match must be at least $50,000. Think strategically: can you count the cost of using district facilities after hours? Are there city or county agencies who provide free or subsidized services? Document everything meticulously. As you explain the budget in your narrative, highlight stable or multi-year funding sources that will keep the program sustainable beyond any single grant cycle.

Per-Child Rates and Attendance

Both ASES and 21st CCLC typically have per-student daily reimbursement formulas. This means if you propose to serve 100 students each day, your maximum award might be based on that attendance figure multiplied by a daily rate, then multiplied by the number of school days. If you project 100 students per day and only 50 show up, you risk a funding reduction in future years. Make your estimates realistic. Consider how you will recruit students—especially older grades who may be more reluctant to attend. As you plan your program, base your attendance estimates on parent surveys or historical trends. Note in your application how you will recruit and retain students, perhaps offering popular enrichment or making attendance recognition part of your program culture.

ELO-P’s Flexible Allocation and Nine-Hour Day Requirement

Because ELO-P is formula-based, you will not compete on cost per student the same way. However, you do have to show that you can effectively use the allocated funds to offer expanded learning for a nine-hour combined day for TK–6 students. Your budget might explain how you will pay for staff beyond the typical contract day, purchase new curricular materials, or partner with community organizations that can supplement academic or enrichment activities. If you expect to use ELO-P funds to serve grades 7–12 after fulfilling TK–6, clarify how you will ensure the younger students’ needs remain the priority in your spending.

Avoiding Common Pitfalls

Hidden Decision Point
Submitting the application is just the first hurdle. What systems will you have in place to track attendance, document costs, and gather required reports throughout the year?

Many well-intentioned proposals fail simply because of oversights in the application or mismatches with program rules. In reading about application experiences across California, several pitfalls repeatedly surface:

• One frequent error is an incomplete application, such as forgetting a signature page or failing to finalize online submission in the ASSIST system before the deadline.
• Another is providing generic, boilerplate answers that do not use local data or do not clearly demonstrate how the program meets the specific priorities of the grant.
• Applicants sometimes run into trouble by ignoring explicit requirements—like operating the program until at least 6:00 PM under ASES—or by exceeding site funding caps and failing to justify costs.

To avoid these issues, give yourself ample time. Create a checklist that mirrors the RFA or plan instructions, ensuring each required piece is finished, signed, and uploaded or mailed. Use your data to craft a targeted needs assessment, and always tie your activities back to that need. Double-check the budget math—especially the local match for ASES. And if you run into confusion about rules or the online submission process, contact the CDE Expanded Learning Division or consult your region’s System of Support for technical assistance.

Final Thoughts on Writing Compelling Applications

Above all, a compelling application reads like a narrative grounded in local realities. You tell the story of your students, your community’s challenges, and how an after-school or expanded learning program will transform afternoons and summers into opportunities to grow academically and socially. You demonstrate readiness by citing staff training, thorough attendance and fiscal tracking systems, and robust community partnerships. You show sustainability by mapping out how you will maintain or even expand the program as years progress.

In the case of ASES and 21st CCLC, where competition can be stiff, it is vital to underscore your past experience or partnerships that grant confidence in your ability to deliver. If you are a first-time applicant, reference smaller-scale pilots, staff expertise, or local philanthropic support that will anchor your new program. If you are a returning grantee, highlight your successes, describe how you have improved attendance or quality, and explain new enhancements you plan to introduce.

In ELO-P’s formula context, your plan still matters greatly. It becomes the guiding document for how you invest those funds, ensuring you comply with the nine-hour requirement and can demonstrate a meaningful approach to addressing the whole child. The state’s frequent audits or plan reviews will ask, “Are you truly offering the best you can, for every student who wants it?” Your thorough planning at the application stage is the best preparation for meeting those audits with confidence.

By following this step-by-step guide—rooting your program design in clear local need, ensuring compliance capacity, drafting a compelling narrative, aligning your budget to realistic goals, and avoiding pitfalls—you can navigate California’s ELO-P, ASES, or 21st CCLC application processes successfully. The ultimate reward is the chance to transform your students’ after-school hours and summers into vibrant learning communities that lift academic performance, spark new interests, and keep children safe.

Which Funding Stream(s) to Pursue?

1. Serving TK–6 only and already have staff for after school?

   • ELO-P may be your most direct path.

2. Need to cover older grades and go past 6:00 PM?

   • ASES (K–9) plus possibly 21st CCLC for middle/high school.

3. Focusing on family engagement or needing a morning program?

   • 21st CCLC could fill that niche, with a federal emphasis on academic enrichment and parental involvement.

4. Is local match funding a roadblock?

   • 21st CCLC might be more viable than ASES since it doesn’t require a match.

5. Already have a robust summer program but need ongoing after-school coverage?

   • Combine ELO-P (summer plus after school) and ASES or 21st CCLC for structured afternoon programs.

Chapter Summary

Chapter 4 provides practical guidance on applying for California’s three primary expanded learning funding streams: the Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELO-P), After School Education and Safety (ASES), and 21st Century Community Learning Centers (21st CCLC). Each funding source has distinct requirements and application processes, yet all share the goal of extending learning opportunities for students. The chapter walks administrators through the essential steps of preparing compelling grant applications, from conducting needs assessments to crafting realistic budgets. It emphasizes the importance of aligning program design with local student needs, securing community support, and avoiding common application pitfalls. By understanding the unique characteristics of each funding stream—ELO-P’s formula-based allocation requiring nine-hour days, ASES’s competitive state grant with local match requirements, and 21st CCLC’s federally funded focus on academic enrichment and family engagement—administrators can strategically select and combine funding sources to create sustainable, high-quality expanded learning programs that truly benefit their communities.

Key Takeaways

• California offers three primary funding streams for expanded learning programs—ELO-P, ASES, and 21st CCLC—each with unique requirements, timelines, and compliance rules that can be strategically combined to maximize program offerings.

• Successful grant applications require a data-driven needs assessment that blends quantitative metrics (test scores, demographics) with qualitative insights (surveys, focus groups) to create a compelling case for your program.

• Before applying, assess your district’s capacity to implement grant requirements, including staffing capabilities, fiscal management systems, and attendance tracking procedures.

• Budget planning must account for all program components, including staff costs (typically 70-80% of expenses), materials, transportation, and professional development, while adhering to specific funding caps and match requirements.

• Common application pitfalls include incomplete submissions, generic responses lacking local data, ignoring explicit requirements like operating hours, and unrealistic budgeting—all of which can be avoided with careful planning and technical assistance.

• Strategic selection of funding streams should be based on your specific needs: ELO-P for TK-6 programs, ASES for K-9 with local match capability, and 21st CCLC for programs emphasizing family engagement or lacking match funding.

Action Checklist

• Refer to the “Which Funding Stream(s) to Pursue?” section on page 125 to select the most appropriate funding source(s) for your program’s specific grade levels and needs

• For ASES applications, document all potential matching fund sources (facility use, partner contributions, etc.) to meet the required 1:3 local match (e.g., $50,000 match for a $150,000 grant)

• Before finalizing attendance projections in your grant application, conduct a parent survey to gather realistic estimates of how many students will participate

• Two weeks before the application deadline, create your own application submission checklist that includes verification of all required signature pages and confirmation that the ASSIST system submission is finalized (not just saved as a draft)

• Double-check that your proposed program hours comply with specific funding requirements (e.g., ASES requires operating until at least 6:00 PM on school days)