Department of Education

EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Request

CONTENTS

Page

Appropriations Language ........................................................................................................A-1

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes.......................................................................A-5

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers ............................................................................A-10

Summary of Changes ...........................................................................................................A-11

Authorizing Legislation..........................................................................................................A-12

Appropriations History...........................................................................................................A-14

Significant Items in FY 2016 Appropriations Reports.............................................................A-16

Summary of Request ............................................................................................................A-17

Activities:

Grants to local educational agencies...............................................................................A-19

School improvement grants.............................................................................................A-31

Comprehensive literacy development grants...................................................................A-37

Innovative approaches to literacy ....................................................................................A-42

State agency programs:

Migrant ......................................................................................................................A-46

Neglected and delinquent..........................................................................................A-52

Special programs for migrant students ............................................................................A-58

State Tables*

*State tables reflecting final 2015 allocations and 2016 and 2017 estimates are posted on the Department’s Web 

page at: http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/index.html
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Appropriation s langu ag e

For carrying out title I and subpart 2 of part B of title II of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965 (referred to in this Act as ‘‘ESEA’’) and section 418A of the Higher 

Education Act of 1965 (referred to in this Act as ‘‘HEA’’), [$16,016,790,000]$16,043,790,000, of 

which [$5,127,006,000]$4,940,990,000 shall become available on July 1, [2016]2017, and shall 

remain available through September 30, [2017]2018, and of which $10,841,177,000 shall 

become available on October 1, [2016]2017, and shall remain available through September 30, 

[2017]2018, for academic year [2016–2017]2017-18:

1 Provided, That $6,459,401,000 shall be 

for basic grants under section 1124 of the ESEA:2 Provided further, That up to 

[$3,984,000]$5,000,000 of these funds shall be available to the Secretary of Education (referred 

to in this title as ‘‘Secretary’’) on October 1, [2015]2016, to obtain annually updated local 

educational agency-level census poverty data from the Bureau of the Census:3 Provided

further, That $1,362,301,000 shall be for concentration grants under section 1124A of the 

ESEA:4 Provided further, That [$3,544,050,000]$3,769,050,000 shall be for targeted grants 

under section 1125 of the ESEA:5 Provided further, That [$3,544,050,000]$3,769,050,000 shall 

be for education finance incentive grants under section 1125A of the ESEA:6 [Provided further, 

That funds available under sections 1124, 1124A, 1125 and 1125A of the ESEA may be used to 

provide homeless children and youths with services not ordinarily provided to other students 

under those sections, including supporting the liaison designated pursuant to section 

722(g)(1)(J)(ii) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, and providing transportation 

pursuant to section 722(g)(1)(J)(iii) of such Act:7 Provided further, That $450,000,000 shall be 

available for school improvement grants under section 1003(g) of the ESEA, which shall be 

allocated by the Secretary through the formula described in section 1003(g)(2) and shall be 

used consistent with the requirements of section 1003(g), except that State and local 

educational agencies may use such funds to serve any school eligible to receive assistance 

A-1
under part A of title I that has not made adequate yearly progress for at least 2 years or is in the 

State’s lowest quintile of performance based on proficiency rates and, in the case of secondary 

schools, priority shall be given to those schools with graduation rates below 60 percent:8

 

Provided further, That notwithstanding section 1003(g)(5)(C) of the ESEA, the Secretary may 

permit a State educational agency to establish an award period of up to 5 years for each 

participating local educational agency:9 Provided further, That funds available for school 

improvement grants for fiscal year 2014 and thereafter may be used by a local educational 

agency to implement a whole-school reform strategy for a school using an evidence-based 

strategy that ensures whole-school reform is undertaken in partnership with a strategy 

developer offering a whole-school reform program that is based on at least a moderate level of 

evidence that the program will have a statistically significant effect on student outcomes, 

including at least one well-designed and well-implemented experimental or quasi-experimental 

study:10 Provided further, That funds available for school improvement grants may be used by a 

local educational agency to implement an alternative State-determined school improvement 

strategy that has been established by a State educational agency with the approval of the 

Secretary:11 Provided further, That a local educational agency that is determined to be eligible 

for services under subpart 1 or 2 of part B of title VI of the ESEA may modify not more than one 

element of a school improvement grant model:12 Provided further, That notwithstanding section 

1003(g)(5)(A), each State educational agency may establish a maximum subgrant size of not 

more than $2,000,000 for each participating school applicable to such funds:13 Provided further, 

That the Secretary may reserve up to 5 percent of the funds available for section 1003(g) of the 

ESEA to carry out activities to build State and local educational agency capacity to implement 

effectively the school improvement grants program:14 Provided further, That $190,000,000 shall 

be available under section 1502 of the ESEA for a comprehensive literacy development and 

education program to advance literacy skills, including pre-literacy skills, reading, and writing, 

A-2
for students from birth through grade 12, including limited-English-proficient students and 

students with disabilities, of which one-half of 1 percent shall be reserved for the Secretary of 

the Interior for such a program at schools funded by the Bureau of Indian Education, one-half of 

1 percent shall be reserved for grants to the outlying areas for such a program, up to 5 percent 

may be reserved for national activities, and the remainder shall be used to award competitive 

grants to State educational agencies for such a program, of which a State educational agency 

may reserve up to 5 percent for State leadership activities, including technical assistance and 

training, data collection, reporting, and administration, and shall subgrant not less than 95 

percent to local educational agencies or, in the case of early literacy, to local educational 

agencies or other nonprofit providers of early childhood education that partner with a public or 

private nonprofit organization or agency with a demonstrated record of effectiveness in 

improving the early literacy development of children from birth through kindergarten entry and in 

providing professional development in early literacy, giving priority to such agencies or other 

entities serving greater numbers or percentages of disadvantaged children:15 Provided further, 

That the State educational agency shall ensure that at least 15 percent of the subgranted funds 

are used to serve children from birth through age 5, 40 percent are used to serve students in 

kindergarten through grade 5, and 40 percent are used to serve students in middle and high 

school including an equitable distribution of funds between middle and high schools:16 Provided 

further, That eligible entities receiving subgrants from State educational agencies shall use such 

funds for services and activities that have the characteristics of effective literacy instruction 

through professional development, screening and assessment, targeted interventions for 

students reading below grade level and other research-based methods of improving classroom 

instruction and practice:]

17 Provided further, That one-half of the total amount of funds made 

available for part A of title I of the ESEA in excess of the amount authorized by section 1002(a) 

shall be allocated to States, the Bureau of Indian Education, and the outlying areas on the basis 

A-3
of their respective shares of the remaining funds received under part A of title I and shall be 

used by each State in accordance with the requirements of section 1003(b) of the ESEA;

18

Provided further, That $217,000,000 shall be for carrying out subpart 2 of part B of title II; 19 

Provided further, That $44,623,000 shall be for carrying out section 418A of the HEA.

20 

(Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2016.)

NOTE

Each language provision that is followed by a footnote reference is explained in the Analysis of Language 

Provisions and Changes document which follows the appropriation language.

A-4
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1 ...of which [$5,127,006,000]

$4,940,990,000 shall become available on 

July 1, [2016]2017, and shall remain 

available through September 30, [2017]2018, 

and of which $10,841,177,000 shall become 

available on October 1, [2016]2017, and shall 

remain available through September 30, 

[2017]2018, for academic year [2016–

2017]2017-18:

This language provides for funds to be 

appropriated on a forward-funded basis for 

the Title I Basic Grants, Concentration 

Grants, Targeted Grants, Education Finance 

Incentive Grants, and State Agency Migrant 

and Neglected and Delinquent. The 

language also provides that a portion of the 

funds is available in an advance 

appropriation that becomes available for 

obligation on October 1 of the following fiscal 

year.

2...Provided, That $6,459,401,000 shall be 

for basic grants under section 1124 of the 

ESEA:

This language establishes a specific funding 

level for Title I Basic Grants.

3 ...Provided further, That up to [$3,984,000]

$5,000,000 of these funds shall be available 

to the Secretary of Education (referred to in 

this title as ‘‘Secretary’’) on October 1, 

[2015]2016, to obtain annually updated local 

educational agency-level census poverty 

data from the Bureau of the Census:

This language makes available, on a currentfunded basis, $5 million from Basic Grant 

funds to support continued work by the 

Census Bureau to update LEA-level poverty 

data.

4 ...Provided further, That $1,362,301,000 

shall be for concentration grants under 

section 1124A of the ESEA:

This language establishes a specific funding 

level for Title I Concentration Grants.

5 ...Provided further, That [$3,544,050,000]

$3,769,050,000 shall be for targeted grants 

under section 1125 of the ESEA:

This language establishes a specific funding 

level for Title I Targeted Grants.

6 ...Provided further, That [$3,544,050,000]

$3,769,050,000 shall be for education 

finance incentive grants under section 1125A 

of the ESEA:

This language establishes a specific funding 

level for Title I Education Finance Incentive 

Grants.

A-5
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

7 [Provided further, That funds available 

under sections 1124, 1124A, 1125 and 

1125A of the ESEA may be used to provide 

homeless children and youths with services 

not ordinarily provided to other students 

under those sections, including supporting 

the liaison designated pursuant to section 

722(g)(1)(J)(ii) of the McKinney-Vento 

Homeless Assistance Act, and providing 

transportation pursuant to section 

722(g)(1)(J)(iii) of such Act:...]

This language allows funds under Title I 

Part A of the ESEA to be used to provide 

homeless children and youths with services 

not ordinarily provided to other students 

under that program, including (1) supporting 

the local liaisons who are responsible for 

coordinating services to ensure that 

homeless children and youth enroll in school 

and have the opportunity to succeed 

academically under the McKinney-Vento 

Homeless Assistance Act; and (2) providing 

transportation as required under the 

McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act to 

permit homeless students to remain in their 

schools of origin despite their residential 

instability. This language is no longer 

needed because the program was

reauthorized.

8 [...Provided further, That $450,000,000 

shall be available for school improvement 

grants under section 1003(g) of the ESEA, 

which shall be allocated by the Secretary 

through the formula described in section 

1003(g)(2) and shall be used consistent with 

the requirements of section 1003(g), except 

that State and local educational agencies 

may use such funds to serve any school 

eligible to receive assistance under part A of 

title I that has not made adequate yearly 

progress for at least 2 years or is in the 

State’s lowest quintile of performance based 

on proficiency rates and, in the case of 

secondary schools, priority shall be given to 

those schools with graduation rates below 

60 percent:...]

This language expands eligibility for 

participation in the School Improvement 

Grants (SIG) program to schools that are 

eligible for but do not receive Title I Part A 

funds and meet certain requirements. The 

language also establishes a priority for 

secondary schools that have graduation 

rates below 60 percent. This language is 

being deleted because the program is no 

longer authorized.

9 [...Provided further, That notwithstanding 

section 1003(g)(5)(C) of the ESEA, the 

Secretary may permit a State educational 

agency to establish an award period of up to 

5 years for each participating local 

educational agency:...]

This language allows State educational 

agencies to make SIG awards of up to 

5 years to local educational agencies. This 

language is being deleted because the 

program is no longer authorized.

A-6
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

10 [...Provided further, That funds available 

for school improvement grants for fiscal year 

2014 and thereafter may be used by a local 

educational agency to implement a wholeschool reform strategy for a school using an 

evidence-based strategy that ensures wholeschool reform is undertaken in partnership 

with a strategy developer offering a wholeschool reform program that is based on at 

least a moderate level of evidence that the 

program will have a statistically significant 

effect on student outcomes, including at least 

one well-designed or well-implemented 

experimental or quasi-experimental study:...]

This language allows local educational 

agencies to use SIG funds to implement, in 

partnership with a strategy developer, whole 

school reform strategies that meet specific 

standards of evidence of effectiveness. This 

language is being deleted because the 

program is no longer authorized.

11 [...Provided further, That funds available 

for school improvement grants may be used 

by a local educational agency to implement 

an alternative State-determined school 

improvement strategy that has been 

established by a State educational agency 

with the approval of the Secretary:...]

This language allows local educational 

agencies to use SIG funds to implement an 

alternative school improvement strategy that 

has been established by the State 

educational agency and approved by the

Secretary. This language is being deleted 

because the program is no longer authorized.

12 [...Provided further, That a local 

educational agency that is determined to be 

eligible for services under subpart 1 or 2 of 

part B of title VI of the ESEA may modify not 

more than one element of a school 

improvement grant model:...]

This language allows local educational 

agencies that are eligible to receive funds 

and services under the Rural Education 

program to modify not more than one

element of a SIG model. This language is 

being deleted because the program is no 

longer authorized.

13 [...Provided further, That notwithstanding 

section 1003(g)(5)(A), each State 

educational agency may establish a 

maximum subgrant size of not more than 

$2,000,000 for each participating school 

applicable to such funds:...]

This language overrides the statutory cap on 

the maximum per-school subgrant size for 

subgrants made by States under the SIG 

program. This language is being deleted 

because the program is no longer authorized.

A-7
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

14 [...Provided further, That the Secretary may 

reserve up to 5 percent of the funds available 

for section 1003(g) of the ESEA to carry out 

activities to build State and local educational 

agency capacity to implement effectively the 

school improvement grants program:...]

This language authorizes the Secretary to 

reserve up to 5 percent of the funds 

appropriated for the SIG program for 

capacity-building. This language is being 

deleted because the program is no longer 

authorized.

15 [...Provided further, That $190,000,000 

shall be available under section 1502 of the 

ESEA for a comprehensive literacy 

development and education program to 

advance literacy skills, including pre-literacy 

skills, reading, and writing, for students from 

birth through grade 12, including limitedEnglish-proficient students and students with 

disabilities, of which one-half of 1 percent 

shall be reserved for the Secretary of the 

Interior for such a program at schools funded 

by the Bureau of Indian Education, one-half 

of 1 percent shall be reserved for grants to 

the outlying areas for such a program, up to 

5 percent may be reserved for national 

activities, and the remainder shall be used to 

award competitive grants to State 

educational agencies for such a program, of 

which a State educational agency may 

reserve up to 5 percent for State leadership 

activities, including technical assistance and 

training, data collection, reporting, and 

administration, and shall subgrant not less 

than 95 percent to local educational agencies 

or, in the case of early literacy, to local 

educational agencies or other nonprofit 

providers of early childhood education that 

partner with a public or private nonprofit 

organization or agency with a demonstrated 

record of effectiveness in improving the early 

literacy development of children from birth 

through kindergarten entry and in providing 

professional development in early literacy, 

giving priority to such agencies or other 

entities serving greater numbers or 

percentages of disadvantaged children:...]

This language provides funding for a Striving 

Readers program that serves students from 

birth through grade 12; provides a portion of 

the funds to the Department of 

Interior/Bureau of Indian Education and the 

Outlying Areas; establishes the amount the 

Department may reserve for national 

activities; and establishes the amount the 

Department must distribute through 

competitive awards to States. The language 

also specifies the amount of funds that 

States receiving competitive awards may 

reserve for State leadership activities and the 

amount of funds that they award through 

subgrants to local educational agencies or to 

nonprofit organizations that provide early 

childhood education services. This language 

is no longer needed because the program 

was reauthorized.

A-8
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

16 [...Provided further, That the State 

educational agency shall ensure that at least 

15 percent of the subgranted funds are used 

to serve children from birth through age 5, 

40 percent are used to serve students in 

kindergarten through grade 5, and 40 percent 

are used to serve students in middle and 

high school including an equitable distribution 

of funds between middle and high 

schools:...]

This language establishes that States must 

use particular amounts of Striving Readers 

funds to support projects serving children in 

specific age groups or grades. This 

language is no longer needed because the 

program was reauthorized.

17 [...Provided further, That eligible entities 

receiving subgrants from State educational 

agencies shall use such funds for services 

and activities that have the characteristics of 

effective literacy instruction through 

professional development, screening and 

assessment, targeted interventions for 

students reading below grade level and other 

research-based methods of improving 

classroom instruction and practice:]

This language establishes requirements for 

the types of activities that entities may 

conduct with their Striving Readers funds. 

This language is no longer needed because 

the program was reauthorized.

18 Provided further, That one-half of the total 

amount of funds made available for part A of 

title I of the ESEA in excess of the amount 

authorized by section 1002(a) shall be 

allocated to States, the Bureau of Indian 

Education, and the outlying areas on the 

basis of their respective shares of the 

remaining funds received under part A of 

title I and shall be used by each State in 

accordance with the requirements of section 

1003(b) of the ESEA;

This language designates a portion of the 

funds appropriated in excess of the 

authorized amount for Title I Targeted Grants

and Education Finance Incentive Grants to 

be used to provide additional support for 

school improvement activities by local 

educational agencies.

19 Provided further, That $217,000,000 shall 

be for carrying out subpart 2 of part B of 

title II; 

This language provides funding for

Comprehensive Literacy Development 

Grants and Innovative Approaches to 

Literacy.

20 Provided further, That $44,623,000 shall be 

for carrying out section 418A of the HEA.

This language provides funding for Special 

Programs for Migrant Students.

A-9
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2015 2016 2017

Discretionary:

Discretionar y Appropriation ........................................................ $15,536,107 $16,016,790 $16,043,790

Discretionar y Comparative transfer from:

Innovation and Improvement for:

Innovative approaches to literacy ................... -- 27,000 0

Total, comparable appropriation 15,536,107 16,043,790 16,043,790

Advance:

Advance for succeeding fiscal year ...................... -10,841,177 -10,841,177 -10,841,177

Advance from prior year....................................... 10,841,177 10,841,177 10,841,177

Total, budget authority ..................................... 15,536,107 16,043,790 16,043,790

A-10
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2016................................................................................................. $16,043,790

2017................................................................................................. 16,043,790

Net change ............................................................... 0

Increases: 2016 base

Change 

from base

Program:

Increase funding for Title I Grants to LEAs to help ensure 

that increasing numbers of students served by the 

program can meet challenging, college- and career-ready 

standards. $14,909,802 +$450,000

Subtotal, increases +450,000

Decreases:

Program:

Eliminate funding for School Improvement Grants because 

program is no longer authorized. 450,000 -450,000

Subtotal, decreases -450,000

Net change 0

A-11
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity 2016

Authorized

footnote

2016

Estimate

2017

Authorized

footnote

2017

Request

Grants to local educational agencies (ESEA-1-A):

LEA grants formulas: LEA grants for mulas 0

1

$15,012,318

LEA grants for mulas Basic grants (Section 1124) (2)$6,459,401 (2)$6,459,401

LEA grants for mulas Concentration grants (Section 1124A) (2)1,362,301 (2)1,362,301

LEA grants for mulas Targeted grants (Section 1125) (2)3,544,050 (2)3,769,050

LEA grants for mulas Education finance incentive grants (Section 1125A) (2)3,544,050 (2)3,769,050

School improvement grants (ESEA Section 1003(g), struck 

by P.L. 114-95) 01 450,000 0 0

Comprehensive literacy development grants (ESEA-II-B, 

Section 2222) 01 190,000 (3) 190,000

Innovative approaches to literacy (ESEA ESEA-II-B, 

Section 2226) 01,4 27,000 (3) 27,000

State agency programs:

Migrant (ESEA I-C) 0

1

374,751 374,751 374,751

Neglected and delinquent (ESEA I-D) 0

1

47,614 47,614 47,614

Evaluation (ESEA sections 1002(e) and 8601) 0

1

0 0 0

Special Programs for Migrant Students (HEA IV-A-5) 05 44,623

To be

determined6 44,623

Total definite authorization 0 15,434,683

Total appropriation 15,536,107 16,043,790

Portion of request subject to reauthorization 44,623

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2008; the program was authorized in fiscal year 2016 through appropriations language.

A-12
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Authorizing Legislation—continued

2 Of the total funds appropriated for Grants to LEAs, an amount equal to the fiscal year 2001 appropriation of $7,397,690 thousand is to be distributed through 

the Basic Grants formula. An amount equal to the fiscal year 2001 appropriation of $1,365,031 thousand is to be distributed through the Concentration Grants 

formula. Amounts appropriated in excess of the fiscal year 2001 appropriation are to be divided equally and distributed through the Targeted Grants and 

Educational Finance Incentive Grants formulas. In recent years, Congress specified the amounts to be distributed through each formula in the annual 

appropriations acts. 3 A total of $468,881 thousand is authorized for Part B of Title II. Of the total amount appropriated for Title II, Part B, 34.1 percent is authorized for Subpart 2 

programs. 4 Prior to fiscal year 2017, the program was authorized under ESEA V-D, Subpart 1, which was repealed by P.L. 114-95. 5 The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2015; the program was authorized in fiscal year 2016 through appropriations language. Reauthorizing 

legislation is sought for FY 2017. 6 The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2015; reauthorizing legislation is sought for FY 2017.

A-13

A-13
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance Footnote

Senate 

Allowance Footnote AppropriationFoot

-

note

2008 $16,689,090 $15,969,818 $15,867,778 $15,489,476

(2008 Advance for 2009) (7,383,301) (8,136,218) (8,867,301) (7,934,756)

2009 16,917,059 15,788,2851 15,735,8841 15,760,086

(2009 Advance for 2010) (7,934,756) (10,841,176) (8,893,756) (10,841,176)

Recovery Act Supplemental 

(PL 111-5) 0 13,000,000 12,400,000 13,000,000

2010 16,431,632 15,938,215 15,891,132215,914,666

(2010 Advance for 2011) (10,841,176) (10,841,176) (10,841,176) (10,841,176)

2011 15,912,193 15,914,6663 16,726,5792 15,914,6664

(2011 Advance for 2012) (11,681,897) (10,841,176) (10,841,176) (10,841,176)

Rescission (P.L. 112-74) -(20,490)

2012 16,253,026 15,949,3195 15,741,7035 15,741,703

(2012 Advance for 2013) (11,681,897) (13,279,177) (10,841,177) (10,841,177)

2013 15,558,649 15,208,151615,840,1036 14,921,636

(2013 Advance for 2014) (11,681,898) (10,841,177) (10,841,177) (10,841,177)

2014 15,683,649 N/A715,875,231215,552,693

(2014 Advance for 2015) (11,681,898) (10,841,177) (10,841,177)

2015 15,377,965 N/A715,566,226815,536,107

(2015 Advance for 2016) (11,681,898) (10,841,177) (10,841,177)

2016 16,592,546 14,869,641

9

15,455,802916,016,790

(2016 Advance for 2017) (10,841,177) (10,841,177) (10,841,177) (10,841,177)

2017 16,043,790

(2017 Advance for 2018) (10,841,177)

1 The levels for the House and Senate allowances reflect action on the regular annual 2009 appropriations bill, 

which proceeded in the 110th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the Senate Committee. 2 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Committee action only. 3 The level for the House allowance reflects the House-passed full-year continuing resolution. 4 The level for appropriation reflects the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 

2011 (P.L. 112-10). 5 The level for the House allowance reflects an introduced bill and the level for the Senate allowance reflects 

Senate Committee action only. 

A-14
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Appropriations History—continued

6 The levels for the House and Senate allowances reflect action on the regular annual 2013 appropriations bill, 

which proceeded in the 112th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the Senate Committee. 7 The House allowance is shown as N/A because there was no Subcommittee action. 8 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Senate Subcommittee action only. 9 The levels for House and Senate allowances reflect action on the regular annual 2016 appropriations bill, which 

proceeded in the 114th Congress only through the House Committee and Senate Committee.

A-15
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Significant Items in FY 2016 Appropriations Reports

Striving Readers

Managers’

Statement: Not later than 30 days prior to the announcement or publication of any notice of 

proposed priorities or inviting applications for the Comprehensive Striving 

Readers Literacy program, the Department shall brief the Committees on 

Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate, Committee on 

Education and the Workforce of the House of Representatives, and Committee 

on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions of the Senate on its plans for this 

grant competition and related evaluation and technical assistance

Response: The Department expects to brief the Committees in early 2016.

Evaluation

Senate: The Department is required to provide the Committees on Appropriations of the 

House of Representatives and the Senate, the Senate HELP Committee, and the 

House Education and Workforce Committee an operating plan describing the 

proposed uses of this evaluation authority as well as the source appropriation for 

such activities. In addition, not later than 45 days prior to the submission of the 

required operating plan, the Department shall brief the Committees above on the 

programs and activities being considered for inclusion in the plan. Further, the 

Committee expects the Department to continue to include in future CJs a 

discussion of its planned use of this authority.

Response: The Department will continue to comply with these requirements regarding the 

pooled evaluation authority.

A-16A-16
ACCOUNT

Summary of R equ est

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2017 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET

Click here for accessible version (in thousands of dollars)

Amount Percent

Education for the Disadvantaged

 1. Grants to local educational agencies (ESEA I-A):

(a) Basic grants (section 1124)

Annual appropriation D 3,568,625 4,068,625 4,518,625 450,000 11.06%

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 2,890,776 2,390,776 1,940,776 (450,000) -18.82%

Subtotal 6,459,401 6,459,401 6,459,401 0 0.00%

(b) Concentration grants (section 1124A)

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 1,362,301 1,362,301 1,362,301 0 0.00%

(c) Targeted grants (section 1125)

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 3,294,050 3,544,050 3,769,050 225,000 6.35%

(d) Education finance incentive grants (section 1125A)

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 3,294,050 3,544,050 3,769,050 225,000 6.35%

Subtotal, Grants to LEAs 14,409,802 14,909,802 15,359,802 450,000 3.02%

Annual appropriation D 3,568,625 4,068,625 4,518,625 450,000 11.06%

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 10,841,177 10,841,177 10,841,177 0 0.00%

 2. School improvement grants (ESEA section 1003(g); struck by P.L. 114-95) D 505,756 450,000 0 (450,000) -100.00%

 3. Comprehensive literacy development grants (ESEA II-B-2, section 2222)1 D 160,000 190,000 190,000 0 0.00%

 4. Innovative approaches to literacy (ESEA II-B-2, section 2226) 2 D --- 27,000 27,000 0 0.00%

 5. State agency programs:

(a) Migrant (ESEA I-C) D 374,751 374,751 374,751 0 0.00%

(b) Neglected and delinquent (ESEA I-D) D 47,614 47,614 47,614 0 0.00%

Subtotal 422,365 422,365 422,365 0 0.00%

 6. Evaluation (ESEA sections 1002(e) and 8601) D 710 0 0 0 ---

 7. Special programs for migrant students (HEA IV-A-5) D 37,474 44,623 44,623 0 0.00%

 Total, Appropriation2 D 15,536,107 16,043,790 16,043,790 0 0.00%

Total, Budget authority 2 D 15,536,107 16,043,790 16,043,790 0 0.00%

Current 4,694,930 5,202,613 5,202,613 0 0.00%

Prior year's advance 10,841,177 10,841,177 10,841,177 0 0.00%

NOTES: D = discretionary program; M = mandatory program; FY = fiscal year 

For most mandatory programs, the levels shown in the 2015 Appropriation column reflect the 7.3 percent sequester that went into effect October 1, 2014, and the levels shown in the 

2016 Appropriation column reflect the 6.8 percent reduction that went into effect on October 1, 2015, pursuant to the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25). 

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

1 Prior to fiscal year 2017, the program was Striving Readers, as authorized by P.L. 107-110, ESEA I-E, section 1502.

2 In the 2015 Appropriation column, funds are included in the Innovation and Improvement account in the Fund for the Improvement of Education Programs of National Significance. The 2016 Appropriation column, 

adjusted for comparability with the 2017 President’s Budget, includes $27,000 thousand that was appropriated in the Innovation and Improvement account. 

2017 President's Budget

2016 Compared to 2016 Appropriation

Account, Program and Activity Appropriation

Category 

Code

2015 

Appropriation

2017 President's 

Budget

A-17

A-17

A-17
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Summary of Request

The programs in the Education for the Disadvantaged account provide the foundation for school 

improvement efforts needed to ensure that all children receive a high-quality education. Most of 

the programs in this account were reauthorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The fiscal year 2017 

request would fund implementation of these programs as reauthorized. The Administration is 

requesting a total of $16 billion in fiscal year 2017 for the programs in this account. 

The $15.4 billion request ($450 million more than the 2016 level) for Title I Grants to Local 

Educational Agencies (LEAs) would support States and districts in providing extra academic 

help to students in high-poverty schools. The increase proposed for 2017 recognizes the 

challenges that States, school districts, and schools continue to face in ensuring that an 

increasing number of students served under the program meet challenging new college- and 

career-ready standards. In addition, a portion of the funds requested above the program’s 

authorized funding level would be used for additional awards to States to support school 

improvement activities authorized by section 1003(b) of the amended ESEA.

The $190 million request for Comprehensive Literacy Development Grants would support 

competitive grants to SEAs to provide targeted, evidence-based literacy intervention in highneed schools. Grantees must subgrant funds to LEAs to support literacy interventions for 

children from birth through kindergarten entry and for students from kindergarten through 

grade 12.

The $10 million request for Innovative Approaches to Literacy would fund competitive grants to 

LEAs, consortia of LEAs, the Bureau of Indian Education, or national nonprofit organizations, to 

promote literacy programs that support the development of literacy skills in low-income 

communities. Grantees would develop and implement school library programs and provide 

high-quality, developmentally appropriate, and up-to-date reading material to children and 

adolescents in low-income communities.

The request would fund the State agency Migrant and the State agency Neglected and 

Delinquent programs at the same level as in 2016, providing $374.8 million for the Migrant

program and $47.6 million for the Neglected and Delinquent program. Under reauthorization, 

allocations for the Migrant program will be based on a new formula. In addition, a key change 

under the reauthorized Neglected and Delinquent program allows local grantees to use program

funds for pay-for-success initiatives. 

Finally, the request includes $44.6 million for Special Programs for Migrant Students, the same 

amount as fiscal year 2016. 

A-18
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Activities:

Grants to local educational agencies

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title I, Part A)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: $15,012,318

Budget authority:

Acti vity and period of fund availability

2016 2017 Change

Basic grants $6,459,401 $6,459,401 0

Concentration grants 1,362,301 1,362,301 0

Targeted grants 3,544,050 3,769,050 +$225,000

Education finance incentive grants 3,544,050 3,769,050 +225,000

Total 14,909,802 15,359,802 +450,000

Annual appropriation 4,068,625 4,518,625 +450,000

Advance for succeeding fiscal year 10,841,177 10,841,177 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs), authorized by Title I, Part A of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 

2015, provides supplemental education funding, especially in high-poverty areas, for local 

programs that provide extra academic support to help students in high-poverty schools meet 

college- and career-ready State academic standards. The program serves an estimated 

23.9 million students in more than half of all public schools, including approximately two-thirds of 

the Nation’s elementary schools. 

Title I schools help students reach challenging State standards through one of two models: a 

targeted assistance model that supplements the regular education program for individual 

students deemed most in need of special assistance, or a schoolwide model that allows schools 

to use Title I fundsin combination with other Federal, State, and local fundsto improve the 

overall instructional program for all students in a school. Schools serving attendance areas in 

which at least 40 percent of students are from low-income families or in which such students 

account for at least 40 percent of enrollment are eligible to operate schoolwide programs; under 

the reauthorized ESEA, States also may grant waivers to operate these programs to schools not 

meeting eligibility requirements. In the 2013-2014 school year, States reported that 

43,482 schools, or 77 percent of all Title I schools, operated schoolwide programs, which 

accounted for approximately 95 percent of participating students.

The reauthorized ESEA encourages the use of Title I funds to strengthen the academic program 

of participating schools, including by establishing preschool programs for eligible children under 

6 years of age and dual or concurrent enrollment programs for eligible secondary school 

A-19
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local education agencies

students that provide access to college-level coursework through partnerships with institutions 

of higher education. Schools also must provide ongoing professional development for staff 

working with disadvantaged students and carry out activities designed to increase parental 

engagement. 

Title I Grants to LEAs provide the foundation for the ESEA’s accountability system for all public 

schools, which emphasizes State and local responsibilities in the areas of challenging academic 

standards and aligned assessments, measuring annual student progress, and supporting school 

improvement. Under the ESSA’s transition provisions, responsibilities described under 

“Standards and Assessments” below took effect upon the law’s enactment, and those under 

“Accountability and School Improvement” will take effect beginning in the 2017-2018 school 

year with support from fiscal year 2017 funds. In the latter areas, States will continue to 

implement applicable provisions of the previous authorization of the ESEA or their ESEA 

flexibility requests through August 1, 2016, except that LEAs or schools identified for 

improvement, corrective action, or restructuring under the previous authorization or as priority or 

focus schools under ESEA flexibility must continue to implement required interventions until the 

2017-2018 school year or Department approval of the State’s Title I, Part A plan under the 

reauthorized law.

Standards and Assessments

Under Title I, each State is required to have a system of challenging academic standards and 

aligned assessments that ensures students are prepared for college and careers, and LEAs 

must integrate these standards into local instruction. The State must adopt challenging content 

standards that describe what all students should know and be able to do in at least reading, 

language arts, mathematics, and science, as well as achievement standards that describe at 

least three levels of performance with respect to the State’s content standards. The 

reauthorized ESEA requires that each State demonstrate alignment of its standards with 

entrance requirements for credit-bearing coursework in the State’s system of higher education 

as well as relevant State career and technical education standards. The State must also adopt 

standards for English language proficiency and may adopt alternate achievement standards for 

students with the most significant cognitive disabilities; both must be aligned with the State’s 

challenging academic content standards.

States are also required to administer academic assessments that measure and provide 

coherent and timely information about the achievement of all students against State standards. 

States must administer reading and mathematics assessments annually to all students in 

grades 3-8 and once in high school, and must administer annual science assessments for at 

least 1 grade in each of 3 grade spans. These assessments must be valid and reliable, include 

measures that assess higher-order thinking skills and understanding of challenging content, 

enable achievement results to be disaggregated by major racial and ethnic groups, gender, and 

poverty, disability, English proficiency, and migrant status. States may permit LEAs to use 

State-approved nationally recognized high school assessments, if any, in lieu of the State’s high 

school assessments. States must also annually assess the English language proficiency of 

English learners and may administer alternate assessments based on alternate achievement 

standards to students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, provided that the number of 

A-20
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local education agencies

students taking these alternate assessments does not exceed 1 percent of all assessed 

students in the State.

The Department provides dedicated State formula grant support for the development and 

implementation of required State assessments (see State Assessments in the School 

Improvement Programs account).

Accountability and school improvement

Under the amended Title I, State standards and assessments are used to hold LEAs and 

schools accountable for performance through State-determined accountability systems. These 

systems must include interim targets and long-term goals for, at a minimum, student proficiency 

on State assessments and high school graduation rates, for all students and disaggregated by 

each student subgroup, as well as progress in attaining English language proficiency for English 

learners. In addition, State systems must include indicators of: (1) academic achievement 

based on State assessments; (2) for high schools, 4-year adjusted cohort graduation rates; 

(3) for elementary and middle schools, another academic indicator (which may be a measure of 

student growth); (4) progress in achieving English language proficiency; and (5) at least one 

indicator, of the State’s choosing, of school quality or student success. States must use these 

indicators to meaningfully differentiate school performance annually, with the first four indicators 

afforded substantial weight individually and much greater weight in the aggregate than 

indicators of school quality or student success. 

The State’s indicators are also used to identify, at least once every 3 years, a statewide 

category of schools for comprehensive support and improvement, which must include the 

lowest-performing 5 percent of Title I schools and all high schools with graduation rates below 

67 percent. LEAs, in partnership with stakeholders, must develop and implement plans for 

these schools that, among other things, include evidence-based interventions stemming from a 

needs assessment. The State must also notify LEAs annually of any schools with consistently 

underperforming student subgroups or with subgroups performing as poorly as schools in the 

lowest-performing 5 percent of Title I schools. Similarly, these schools must develop and 

implement targeted support and improvement plans to improve outcomes for those particular 

subgroups of students using evidence-based interventions. Schools with subgroups performing 

as poorly as schools in the lowest-performing 5 percent and that have not improved after 

receiving targeted support and improvement for a State-determined number of years must be 

identified by the State for comprehensive support and improvement.

Under section 1003(a) of the amended ESEA, States must reserve funds to make subgrants on 

a formula or competitive basis to LEAs to support schools identified for comprehensive support 

and improvement or implementing targeted support and improvement plans. In fiscal year 

2017, each State must reserve for this purpose the greater of: (1) 7 percent of its combined 

Title I, Part A allocations to its LEAs; or (2) the sum of its fiscal year 2016 section 1003(a) 

reservation (a maximum of 4 percent of its Title I, Part A allocations) and its fiscal year 2016 

allocation under the School Improvement Grants program. 

A-21
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local education agencies

Allocations

Title I, Part A funds are allocated through four separate formulas. All four formulas are based 

on the number of children from low-income families in each LEA, and each formula also 

includes such factors as the LEA’s poverty rate and State per-pupil expenditures for education. 

Other children counted for allocation purposes (“formula children”) include children in families 

above the poverty line receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (the main FederalState income maintenance program), children in foster homes, and children in local institutions 

for neglected and delinquent (N&D) children. Eligible LEAs receive funding under one or more 

of the formulas, but the final outcome of the Federal-State allocation process is a single Title I, 

Part A award to each qualifying LEA.

Three formulas are based primarily on the number of formula children in each LEA, weighted by 

State per-pupil expenditures for education. Basic Grants are awarded to school districts with at 

least 10 formula children who make up more than 2 percent of their school-age population 

(defined as children ages 5 to 17) and, thus, spread funds thinly across nearly all LEAs. 

Concentration Grants provide additional funds to LEAs in which the number of formula children 

exceeds 6,500 or 15 percent of the total school-age population. The Targeted Grants formula 

weights child counts to make higher payments to school districts with high numbers or 

percentages of formula students. To be eligible for Targeted Grants, an LEA must have at least 

10 formula children counted for Basic Grant purposes, and the count of formula children must 

equal at least 5 percent of the school age population.

In addition, the statute includes a separately authorized and funded Education Finance 

Incentive Grants (EFIG) formula. This formula uses State-level “equity” and “effort” factors to 

make allocations to States that are intended to encourage States to spend more on education 

and to improve the equity of State funding systems. Once State allocations are determined, 

sub-allocations to the LEA level are based on a modified version of the Targeted Grants 

formula.

In determining allocations under each of the four formulas, the statute requires the use of 

annually updated Census Bureau estimates of the number of children from low-income families 

in each LEA. There is roughly a 2-year lag between the income year used for LEA poverty 

estimates and the fiscal year in which those estimates are used to make Title I allocations. For 

example, the fiscal year 2015 allocations were based on LEA poverty estimates for 2013. The 

Department transfers a small amount of funding from the annual Title I appropriation to the 

Census Bureau to finance the preparation of these LEA poverty estimates.

LEAs also use poverty data—generally the number of students eligible for free- or reduced-price 

lunch—to make within-district allocations to schools. LEAs with more than 1,000 students must 

serve, in rank order by poverty rate, all schools with a poverty rate above 75 percent, including 

middle and high schools, before serving schools with less needy student populations. Under 

the reauthorized ESEA, an LEA may lower the service threshold for high schools from 75 to 

50 percent if it chooses.

Of the total appropriation for Title I Grants to LEAs, 0.7 percent is reserved for the Department 

of the Interior’s Bureau of Indian Education and 0.4 percent for the Outlying Areas (American 

A-22
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local education agencies

Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands). The amount reserved for 

the Outlying Areas includes $1 million for the Republic of Palau. In addition, States are 

permitted to reserve up to 1 percent, or $400,000, whichever is greater, to cover State costs of 

administering Title I programs, except that such amounts may not exceed the level that is 

provided if the total appropriation for Parts A, C, and D of Title I of the ESEA equals $14 billion, 

a threshold that has been exceeded each year beginning with fiscal year 2008. Finally, under 

the reauthorized ESEA, a State may also reserve up to 3 percent of its allocation to make grants 

to LEAs to carry out direct student services, including participation in courses not otherwise 

available at the student’s school and in advanced courses and exams, personalized learning 

approaches, credit recovery programs, and transportation to enable students to attend higherperforming schools.

Title I Grants to LEAs is a forward-funded program that includes advance appropriations. A 

portion of funds becomes available for obligation on July 1 of the fiscal year in which they are 

appropriated and remains available for Federal obligation for 15 months. The remaining funds 

become available on October 1 of the following fiscal year and remain available for Federal 

obligation for 12 months, expiring at the same time as the forward-funded portion.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

(dollars in thousands)

Fiscal Year

Basic

Grants

Concentration 

Grants

Targeted

Grants

Education Finance

Incentive Grants

2012 .................... $6,577,904 $1,365,031 $3,288,126 $3,288,126

2013 .................... 6,232,639 1,293,919 3,116,831 3,116,831

2014 .................... 6,459,401 1,362,301 3,281,550 3,281,550

2015 .................... 6,459,401 1,362,301 3,294,050 3,294,050

2016 .................... 6,459,401 1,362,301 3,544,050 3,544,050

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $15.4 billion for Title I Grants to LEAs in fiscal year 2017, an 

increase of $450 million over the fiscal year 2016 level of $14.9 billion. The requested increase 

would help States, LEAs, and schools address the challenges they continue to face in ensuring 

that the increasing numbers of students served by the program meet challenging college- and 

career-ready standards. The request includes appropriations language overriding the program’s 

authorized funding level.

Turning around the Nation’s lowest-performing schools remains an especially urgent challenge 

and warrants prioritized funding. Accordingly, the request also includes appropriations 

language allocating 50 percent of funds above the authorized funding level, or $173.7 million, to 

States for school improvement activities consistent with section 1003(b) of the amended ESEA. 

These additional resources, which would be distributed on the basis of States’ shares of 

remaining Title I funds, would buttress States’ increased set-asides under section 1003(a) and 

help ensure that LEAs have the resources needed to implement proven or promising models for 

turning around the lowest-performing schools or providing targeted support in schools that are 

failing specific subgroups of students. In addition, the Administration proposes to eliminate the 

A-23
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local education agencies

LEA-level hold-harmless provision in section 1003(h) of the ESEA. Although this provision is 

not in effect for fiscal year 2017, the Administration believes that it should be repealed to ensure 

that States are able to reserve sufficient school improvement funding under section 1003(a) in 

fiscal year 2018 and beyond.

Lastly, the request includes $5 million for Census Bureau preparation of LEA poverty estimates, 

an increase of $1 million over the amount provided for this purpose in fiscal year 2016. 

Additionally, the increase includes $500,000 to cover higher costs for maintaining current 

operations of the Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates program and $500,000 to support 

annual (rather than biennial) LEA boundary updates and independent evaluations of 

methodology.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands, except whole dollar per-child amounts)

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

Allocations by LEA Poverty Rate:

0-15%

# of LEAs 4,836 5,002 5,002

0-15% Dollars $1,799,637 $1,962,597 $1,997,944

0-15% % of Total $ 12.72 13.40 13.41

0-15% # of Formula Eligible Children 1,695,467 1,785,216 1,785,216

0-15% $ Per Formula Child $1,061 $1,099 $1,119

15-25%

# of LEAs 4,568 4,656 4,656

15-25% Dollars $3,946,142 $4,360,641 $4,442,920

15-25% % of Total $ 27.90 29.78 29.81

15-25% # of Formula Eligible Children 3,390,689 3,614,176 3,614,176

15-25% 15-25% $ Per Formula Child $1,164 $1,207 $1,229

>25% 

# of LEAs 3,680 3,391 3,391

>25% Dollars $8,397,719 $8,319,541 $8,463,331

>25% % of Total $ 59.38 56.82 56.78

>25% # of Formula Eligible Children 6,210,844 5,904,132 5,904,132

>25% >25% $ Per Formula Child $1,352 $1,409 $1,433

LEA Allocation Subtotal $14,143,555 $14,642,779 $14,904,195

BIA/Outlying Areas 144,058 149,058 166,992

School improvement reservation 0 0 173,742

N&D program (Part D, Subpart 2) 118,202 113,981 109,873

Census Updates 3,984 3,984 5,000

Grants to LEAs Total 14,409,802 14,409,802 15,359,802

A-24
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local education agencies

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

Number of Schools receiving Title I funds:

StudentsSchoolwide programs 43,482 43,482 43,482

Targeted assistance programs 13,053 13,053 13,053

Total 56,535 56,535 56,535

Number of Students served (in millions):

StudentsSchoolwide programs 22.8 22.8 22.8

StudentsTargeted assistance programs 1.1 1.1 1.1

StudentsNon-public and N&D programs 0.2 0.2 0.2

Total 24.1 24.1 24.1

 Note: Descriptive data related to number of schools receiving Title I funds are from the 2013-14 school year 

Common Core of Data (CCD). Descriptive data related to numbers of students served are from the Consolidated 

State Performance Report (school year 2013-14).

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in 

FY 2017 and future years, and the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

The performance measures and targets for the Title I Grants to LEAs program rely on data 

submitted annually through the ESEA Consolidated State Performance Reports, which include 

State and local performance information primarily as specified through the annual “report card” 

requirements described in Section 1111(h) of the ESEA. 

In 2014, due to field testing of new assessments aligned to college- and career-ready 

standards, some States did not test all students on their legacy State assessments to avoid 

double testing. As a result, 2014 data for these measures might not be comparable to data for 

prior years.

The 2015 data for these measures are expected to be available in summer 2016.

Goal: At-risk students improve their achievement to meet challenging standards.

Objective: The performance of low-income students will increase substantially in reading and 

mathematics.

A-25
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local education agencies

Measure: The percentage of economically disadvantaged students in grades 3-8 scoring at or 

above the proficient level on State reading assessments.

Year

Target Percentage of 

Students Who Test At or 

Above Proficiency

Actual Percentage of 

Students Who Test At or 

Above Proficiency

2012 88.8% 59.7%

2013 94.4 54.5

2014 100.0 54.1

2015 100.0

2016 100.0

2017 100.0

Measure: The percentage of economically disadvantaged students in grades 3-8 scoring at or 

above the proficient level on State mathematics assessments.

Year

Target Percentage of 

Students Who Test At or 

Above Proficiency

Actual Percentage of 

Students Who Test At or 

Above Proficiency

2012 88.1% 58.0%

2013 94.0 51.9

2014 100.0 51.1

2015 100.0

2016 100.0

2017 100.0

Measure: The difference between the percentage of economically disadvantaged students in 

grades 3-8 scoring at or above the proficient level on State reading assessments and the 

percentage of all students in grades 3-8 scoring at or above the proficient level on State reading 

assessments.

Year

Target Gap in Proficiency 

Percentage Between 

Economically Disadvantaged 

Students and All Students

Actual Gap in Proficiency 

Percentage Between 

Economically Disadvantaged 

Students and All Students

2012 3.3% 10.6%

2013 1.6 11.1

2014 0.0 10.7

2015 0.0

2016 0.0

2017 0.0

A-26
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local education agencies

Measure: The difference between the percentage of economically disadvantaged students in 

grades 3-8 scoring at or above the proficient level on State mathematics assessments and the 

percentage of all students in grades 3-8 scoring at or above the proficient level on State 

mathematics assessments.

Year

Target Gap in Proficiency 

Percentage Between 

Economically Disadvantaged 

Students and All Students

Actual Gap in Proficiency 

Percentage Between 

Economically Disadvantaged 

Students and All Students

2012 3.2% 10.2%

2013 1.6 11.0

2014 0.0 11.1

2015 0.0

2016 0.0

2017 0.0

Additional information: Performance targets for these measures were established based on 

the ESEA goal of 100 percent student proficiency in reading and mathematics by 2014. The 

Department is considering how best to revise the targets for 2016 and future years based on 

States’ goals under the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, and actual performance. 

The decreases in the percentage of students scoring at or above proficiency on State 

assessments in 2013 and 2014 might be explained, in part, by States’ transition to more 

rigorous assessments based on college- and career-ready standards. 

Efficiency Measure

Measure: Average number of business days to complete State monitoring reports, following the 

completion of a site visit.

Year

Target

Number of Days

Actual

Number of Days

2012 40.0 32.3

2013 40.0 50.5

2014 40.0 N/A

2015 40.0 N/A

2016 40.0

2017 40.0

Assessment of progress: This measure provides information on monitoring visits to States 

conducted by the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) under a traditional 

protocol covering the following Department formula grant programs: Title I Grants to Local 

Educational Agencies, Title I Neglected and Delinquent, Education for Homeless Children and 

Youths, and Title III English Language Acquisition Grants. Since 2013, the Department has 

focused on implementing a new set of monitoring protocols for States receiving ESEA flexibility, 

resulting in only 3 monitoring visits under the traditional protocol in 2013 and no such visits in 

2014 or 2015. Completion of reports under ESEA flexibility monitoring has generally taken 

A-27
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local education agencies

significantly longer than the target for reports under the traditional protocol, in part because the 

monitoring approach is less compliance-driven, more inquiry-based, and new for the 

Department and States. The Department is considering whether to revise the measure and the 

targets for 2016 and future years in light of changes made to these programs through 

reauthorization of the ESEA. 

Other Performance Information

The Title I Program at a Glance

In the 2013-2014 school year, the most recent year for which complete data are available, the 

Title I program served approximately 23.9 million students, or about 47 percent of the total 

student population. More detailed program information, compared to the overall public school 

population, is displayed in the table below.

Student Group

# of Students,

All Schools

# of Students,

Title I Schools

% of students

served by Title I

All 50,473,414 23,940,402 47%

American Indian or Alaska 

Native 523,249 323,542 62

Asian or Pacific Islander 2,615,259 919,389 35

Black 7,822,588 5,153,395 66

Hispanic 2,854,707 8,754,565 68

White 25,148,419 8,153,719 31

Two or more races 1,509,192 635,792 42

Eligible for free or reducedprice lunch 26,185,766 15,984,636 61

English learners 4,947,594 3,730,139 75

Students with disabilities 5,839,652 3,259,012 56

Additional information: Descriptive data are from the National Center for Education Statistics’ 

Common Core of Data (CCD), the Consolidated State Performance Reports, and other 

collections through the Department’s EDFacts system for the 2013-14 school year. Total counts 

of students in Title I schools do not include students in non-public or Neglected and Delinquent 

programs.

A-28
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local education agencies

In addition, data on the concentration of students eligible for free and reduced-price lunch show 

that Title I funds seem to be reaching the target schools and students, as indicated in the table 

below.

Concentration ranges of 

students eligible for free 

or reduced-price lunch # of Schools # of Title I Schools % Title I Schools

0-20% 13,688 3,081 23%

21-40% 18,014 5,842 32

41-60% 22,401 12,248 55

61-80% 20,634 15,194 74

81-100% 20,480 17,724 87

Additional information: Descriptive data related to the number of schools receiving Title I 

funds are from the CCD, 2012-13 school year. Data on Title I status for NY are from the 

2011-12 school year.

National Assessment of Title I: Final Report

The ESEA, as in effect prior to enactment of the ESSA, required a comprehensive, multi-year 

national assessment of the implementation and impact of Title I Grants to LEAs. The most 

recent data from this assessment are included in two reports. The first, a 2009 report entitled 

“Title I Implementation: Update on Recent Evaluation Findings,” provides a summary of findings 

from Title I evaluation studies that became available after the publication of the National 

Assessment of Title I final report in 2007. The second report, “State and Local Implementation 

of the No Child Left Behind Act, Volume IX-Accountability Under NCLB: Final Report,” was 

published in 2010 and provides updated information on State, district, and school 

implementation of NCLB provisions concerning accountability and school improvement. Both 

reports, as well as other related Title I evaluation reports, are available on the Department of 

Education’s Web site at http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#title. A 

national assessment of Title I Grants to LEAs is no longer required under the ESEA as 

amended; however, the ESEA now requires the publication of a report by the Institute of 

Education Sciences on the effectiveness of the four Title I, Part A allocation formulas in 

delivering funds to the most economically disadvantaged communities, with a particular 

emphasis on examining certain categories of LEAs, including small LEAs with relatively large 

concentrations of students in poverty, and the impact of number weighting and percentage 

weighting used within the Targeted Grants and Education Finance Incentive Grants formulas.

ESEA Flexibility Analysis

The Department has also supported the development of State profiles, which are data analyses 

of States’ accountability systems under ESEA flexibility. The profiles examine the 

characteristics of schools identified by each SEA’s differentiated accountability system for the 

2012-13 and 2013-14 school years, including the performance of all students and all subgroups 

based on, respectively, 2011-12 and 2012-13 student achievement and graduation rate data. 

The profiles (available on the Department’s State-specific ESEA flexibility Webpages at 

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/index.html) are one tool that States can use 

A-29
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local education agencies

to support continuous improvement, analyze whether their identification systems capture the 

lowest-performing schools and subgroups, and provide greater public transparency around 

accountability systems under ESEA flexibility. As noted above, all ESEA flexibility agreements 

expire on August 1, 2016.

A-30
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

School improvement grants

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Section 1003(g))

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: 01

Budget authority: 

2016 2017 Change

$450,000 0 -$450,000

1 The authorization for this program was struck by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, which reauthorized 

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA), which reauthorized the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), eliminated the School Improvement Grants (SIG) 

program, previously authorized by section 1003(g) of the ESEA. However, Congress provided a 

final appropriation of $450 million for the program in fiscal year 2016 and, consistent with the 

transition provisions of the ESSA and the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2016, 

the Department will make a final round of SIG awards for fiscal year 2016. 

Under the SIG program, the Department makes awards to each State educational agency 

(SEA) based on the SEA’s proportionate share of funds under ESEA Title I, Parts A, C, and D. 

Each SEA must use at least 95 percent of its SIG allocation to make competitive subgrants to 

local educational agencies (LEAs) to assist their Title I schools identified for improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring, and may use up to 5 percent for administration, evaluation, 

and technical assistance activities. In making subgrants, SEAs must give priority to LEAs 

demonstrating the greatest need for school improvement funding and the strongest commitment 

to providing the resources needed to help their lowest-performing schools successfully 

implement improvement plans. LEAs may receive up to $2 million annually for each school 

served.

In October 2010, the Department established criteria for SEAs to use in implementing the 

statutory priorities for awarding SIG funds to LEAs. These 2010 requirements (at 75 FR 66363)

were intended to ensure that the significant investments in the SIG program, including $3 billion 

in one-time funding made available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009, were used to implement rigorous interventions in the Nation’s persistently lowestachieving schools. To determine greatest need, the 2010 requirements established three tiers 

of schools based on the statutory eligibility requirements and the definition of “persistently 

lowest-achieving schools” developed for use in the reporting required by the State Fiscal 

Stabilization Fund and in State plans for turning around their lowest-performing schools under 

Race to the Top. Persistently lowest-achieving schools generally included: (1) the State’s 

A-31
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

School improvement grants

bottom 5 percent, in terms of academic achievement, of Title I schools in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring; (2) the bottom 5 percent, in terms of academic achievement, 

of secondary schools in each State that are eligible for, but that do not receive, Title I, Part A 

funds; and (3) Title I secondary schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring with 

graduation rates below 60 percent and other Title I-eligible secondary schools with graduation 

rates below 60 percent. The 2010 requirements also defined “strongest commitment” as a 

commitment by an LEA to use SIG funds to implement fully and effectively one of four rigorous 

school intervention models (the Turnaround, Restart, Closure, and Transformation models) in 

each of its persistently lowest-achieving schools.

In February 2015, in response to program changes made by Congress through appropriations 

language, the Department issued new requirements to encourage the adoption of evidencebased models for school improvement and to increase flexibility for SEAs and LEAs under the 

program. Among other things, the 2015 requirements (at 80 FR 7224) allow SEAs to extend the 

SIG award period from 3 to 5 years and LEAs to implement reform strategies beyond the four 

intervention models in the 2010 requirements, including evidence-based whole-school reform 

strategies and an alternative State-determined whole-school reform model. The 2015 

requirements also required an SEA implementing ESEA flexibility to use its lists of priority and 

focus schools as its list of SIG-eligible schools.

Since fiscal year 2012, appropriations acts have authorized the Department to reserve up to 

5 percent of SIG funds to carry out activities to build SEA and LEA capacity to implement the 

SIG program effectively.

This is a forward-funded program. Funds become available for obligation on July 1 of the fiscal 

year in which they are appropriated and remain available through September 30 of the following 

year.

Funding levels for the program for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) footnote

2012.........................................................$533,552

2013...........................................................505,756 

2014...........................................................505,756

2015...........................................................505,756

2016...........................................................450,000

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration does not request fiscal year 2017 funding for the SIG program because the 

program is no longer authorized under the ESEA as amended by the ESSA.

Although it eliminates the SIG program, the reauthorized ESEA maintains support for school 

improvement. Among other things, it increases the amount of Title I, Part A funds that SEAs 

must reserve for this purpose and requires this dedicated funding to be targeted on the lowestperforming schools. Specifically, under section 1003(a) of the ESEA as amended, in fiscal year 

2017, an SEA must reserve the greater of: (1) 7 percent of its combined Title I, Part A 

A-32
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

School improvement grants

allocations to its LEAs; or (2) the sum of its fiscal year 2016 section 1003(a) reservation (a 

maximum of 4 percent of its Title I, Part A allocations) and its fiscal year 2016 allocation under 

the School Improvement Grants program. SEAs must use reserved funds to make subgrants to 

LEAs to support schools that are identified for comprehensive support and improvement (i.e., 

are among the lowest-achieving schools) or implementing targeted support and improvement 

plans (i.e., have consistently underperforming student subgroups) under section 1111(d) of the 

amended ESEA. Further, in making subgrants, SEAs must give priority to LEAs that serve high 

numbers or percentages of these schools, that demonstrate the greatest need for funds as 

determined by the State, and that demonstrate the strongest commitment to using the funds to

improve outcomes.

The Administration’s fiscal year 2017 budget includes additional resources to help ensure that 

local school improvement efforts can be successful. Specifically, 50 percent of the funds 

requested for Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies above the program’s authorized 

funding level would be allocated to States on the basis of their shares of remaining Title I funds 

and used for school improvement activities consistent with section 1003(b) of the reauthorized 

law. In addition, the Administration proposes to eliminate the LEA-level hold-harmless provision 

in section 1003(h) of the ESEA. While this provision is not in effect for fiscal year 2017, the 

Administration believes that it should be repealed to ensure that States are able to reserve 

sufficient school improvement funding under section 1003(a) in fiscal year 2018 and beyond.

Finally, the Department has determined that, under the applicable transition provisions of the 

ESSA, SEAs that make, or have made, multi-year SIG awards to LEAs initially with funds from 

fiscal year 2016 or prior years may use funds reserved in fiscal year 2017 and future years 

under section 1003(a) of the ESEA, as amended, to continue those awards under the terms and 

conditions that were in effect prior to enactment of the ESSA.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

Amount to States $475,958 $423,469 0

Amount to States Range of State awards $1,103-$59,541 $998-53,300 0

Amount to States Average State award $9,153 $8,144 0

Amount to BIE $3,187 $2,808 0

Amount for Outlying Areas $1,323 $1,223 0

National activities $25,288 $22,500 0

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

The regulatory requirements for the SIG program include reporting metrics intended to help the 

Department, States, and LEAs evaluate the effectiveness of the required interventions and to 

inform technical assistance activities. States must report to the Department on the LEAs that 

A-33
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

School improvement grants

received SIG awards, the size of the awards, and the schools served by each LEA with SIG 

funds (including the level of support provided to each participating school). States also must 

report certain school-level information for schools served with SIG funds, such as the 

intervention implemented in the school, student achievement levels, graduation and dropout 

rates, and data on teacher performance and school climate. The Department collects these 

data through its EDFacts system.

Implementation of SIG Grants

In November 2014, the Department began publishing, at 

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/sigprofiles/index.html, a set of quick-release profiles designed 

to accelerate dissemination of promising practices in the school turnaround field. These profiles 

are informed by interviews of selected States, LEAs, and schools receiving SIG funds and 

analyses of implementation data. They address topics such as turnaround leadership, databased decision-making, school climate, community engagement, and capacity building. A 

profile of Kit Carson International Academy in Las Vegas, Nevada, for instance, showed that 

efforts to increase learning time and make strategic improvements in literacy instruction have 

contributed to a 30 percentage point increase in proficiency on State reading assessments for 

the school over just 3 years. Remaining profiles are expected to be released on a rolling basis 

through early spring 2016.

The Department is also conducting a series of more detailed case studies of SIG 

implementation. The studies are designed to provide descriptively rich information on a 

purposefully selected sample of 25 schools that began implementing SIG interventions in the 

2010-2011 school year. A report with initial findings from the schools’ first implementation year 

was published in May 2014 and is available at 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144015/pdf/20144015.pdf. This report showed that the schools 

for which respondents described improvements in the greatest number of areas had higher 

levels of principal strategic leadership (referring to the ability of principals to formulate a strategy 

for school improvement and translate that strategy into concrete priorities and specific actions) 

and were more likely to have experienced a disruption from past practices (defined as visible 

changes on at least four of eight indicators relating to school operation); however, for most of 

the schools, respondents did not perceive their SIG award as the primary impetus for the 

change strategies that had been adopted. In addition, the report found that the three 

improvement actions noted by respondents in the greatest number of schools were expanding 

professional development activities, replacing the principal, and increasing learning time.

The Department also released, in April and November 2014, an evaluation brief focusing on 

case study schools that are rural and two briefs on schools that serve high percentages of 

English learners. The brief on rural case study schools (available at 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144013/pdf/20144013.pdf) indicated, among other things, that 

rural SIG schools faced challenges beyond those also reported by non-rural schools (such as 

low student motivation and staff morale) due to remote locations and large catchment areas, 

including challenges in the recruitment or retention of teachers and, to a lesser extent, parent 

involvement. The first brief on case study schools serving English learners (at 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144014/pdf/20144014.pdf) found that the schools’ approaches to 

improvement during initial implementation tended to include only limited to moderate attention to 

A-34
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

School improvement grants

the unique needs of these students and that schools that appeared to provide stronger attention 

were more likely to report having school staff dedicated to English learner needs and to be 

located in districts that reportedly provided expertise and an explicit focus on English learners 

within the SIG context. The second brief (at 

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20154004/pdf/20154004.pdf) focused on efforts to improve teacher 

capacity to serve English learners, notably finding that teachers in schools that reported a 

greater focus on developing teachers to serve these students were generally more likely to 

report that participation in professional development activities improved their effectiveness.

Outcomes of SIG Grants

In October 2015, the Department published results of an analysis of achievement, graduation 

rate, and leading indicator data for schools receiving SIG funding from the fiscal year 2009, 

2010, and 2011 competitions. Comparing, where data permit, schools’ proficiency rates on 

State assessments in the 2012-2013 school year to their rates in the year prior to receiving SIG 

funds, the analysis found that nearly 40 percent of schools receiving SIG awards in fiscal year 

2009 experienced double-digit gains in mathematics proficiency rates over their 3-year grant 

period, and a third also saw double-digit gains in reading proficiency over that time. The 

analysis also found the following average increases in proficiency:

• Eight percentage points in mathematics and 6 percentage points in reading for 2009 cohort 

schools over the 3-year grant period;

• For 2010 cohort schools, 5 percentage points in mathematics and 4 points in reading over a 

2-year period; and

• For 2011 cohort schools, 2 points in mathematics and 1 point in reading in 1 year.

In addition, nearly half of 2009 cohort high schools and 38 percent of 2010 cohort high schools 

increased their adjusted cohort graduation rates by 6 or more percentage points between school 

years 2010-11 and 2012-13, compared to a quarter of all public high schools nationally during 

that time. Similarly, nearly half of 2011 cohort high schools increased graduation rates by 4 or 

more percentage points from 2011-2012 to 2012-13, compared with approximately a quarter of 

all schools. These gains contributed to an all-time high national graduation rate of 81 percent in 

2012-13, which has increased to 82 percent in 2013-14.

The Department is also conducting a formal evaluation of the implementation and impact of 

school turnaround efforts in both the Race to the Top (RTT) and SIG programs. This evaluation 

involves collecting data from all 50 States and DC, as well as roughly 60 LEAs and 525 schools. 

The study focuses on: (1) RTT and SIG implementation; (2) the relationship between receipt of 

RTT funds and student outcomes; (3) the impact of SIG funds on student outcomes in the 

lowest-achieving schools; and (4) the relationship between the four original school turnaround 

models (and related improvement strategies) and student outcomes and school performance. 

The Department released its implementation report from this study in September 2015 

(available at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20154018/). The report notably found that schools 

implementing a SIG-funded model used more practices promoted by SIG than low-performing 

schools not implementing SIG models in the areas of comprehensive instructional reforms, 

A-35
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

School improvement grants

teacher and principal effectiveness, learning time and community-oriented schools, and 

operational flexibility and support. The report also showed that usage of practices promoted by 

SIG was highest in the comprehensive instructional reform area and lowest in the operational 

flexibility and support area. A final report on the impact of the RTT and SIG programs is slated 

for release in September 2016.

A-36
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Comprehensive literacy development grants

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title II, Part B, Subpart 2, Section 2222)

FY 2017 Authorization: (1)

Budget Authority: 

2016 2017 Change

$190,000 $190,000 0

1 A total of $468,881 thousand is authorized for Part B of Title II. Of the total amount appropriated for Title II, Part 

B, 34.1 percent is authorized for the Comprehensive Literacy Development and Innovative Approaches to Literacy 

Grants programs under Subpart 2.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Comprehensive Literacy Development Grants program provides competitive grants to State 

educational agencies (SEAs) that then award subgrants to eligible entities to support efforts to 

improve literacy instruction in high-need schools or early childhood education programs. The 

reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act by the Every Student Succeeds 

Act changed the name of this program from Striving Readers. 

In awarding Comprehensive Literacy Development Grants, the Department is required to give 

priority to SEAs that will use grant funds for evidence-based activities. Each SEA that receives 

a grant must use at least 95 percent of its allocation to make competitive subgrants to one or 

more local educational agencies (LEAs) or, for the purposes of providing early literacy services, 

to one or more early childhood education programs. LEAs or early childhood education 

programs that receive subgrants from SEAs under this program must serve a high percentage 

of disadvantaged children, such as children from low-income families, children with disabilities, 

or English learners, and must represent diverse geographical areas. Early childhood education 

programs that receive subgrants must have a demonstrated record of providing comprehensive 

literacy instruction for children aged birth through 5. SEAs are also required to ensure that at 

least 15 percent of the subgranted funds are used to serve children from birth through age 5, 

40 percent to serve students in kindergarten through grade 5, and 40 percent to serve students 

in grades 6 through 12. Further, States must equitably distribute funds among grades within the 

kindergarten through grade 5 and grades 6 through 12 bands. 

An SEA may reserve up to 5 percent of its allocation for activities related to implementing its 

comprehensive literacy plan and administering subgrants, including providing technical 

assistance to subgrantees to design and implement their literacy programs, coordinating with 

institutions of higher education to enhance pre-service courses for students preparing to teach 

in early childhood education programs or elementary and secondary schools, reviewing and 

updating State literacy licensure or certification standards, sharing information on promising 

literacy instructional practices, training literacy coaches, and evaluating grant-funded activities. 

Eligible entities receiving subgrants must use program funds for services and activities that have 

the characteristics of effective, evidence-based comprehensive literacy instruction, as defined 

A-37
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Comprehensive literacy development grants

by the statute. Allowable activities may include professional development and training for early 

childhood educators and related school staff, coordinating activities designed to increase family 

engagement in children’s literacy development, and other research-based methods of improving 

classroom instruction and practice.

The Department also is required to reserve: (1) one-half of 1 percent for the Department of the 

Interior to carry out comprehensive literacy programs in schools operated or funded by the 

Bureau of Indian Education and (2) one-half of 1 percent for the Outlying Areas. The 

Department may reserve up to 5 percent for national activities, which includes a national 

evaluation, technical assistance and training, data collection, and reporting. 

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were as follows:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) footnote

2012................................ ........................$159,698

2013................................ ..........................151,378

2014................................ ..........................158,000

2015................................ ..........................160,000

2016................................ ..........................190,000

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration’s fiscal year 2017 request includes $190.0 million for Comprehensive 

Literacy Development Grants, the same as the fiscal year 2016 appropriation for Striving 

Readers. The request includes appropriations language that would override the combined 

authorization level for this program and the Innovative Approaches to Literacy program. All 

funds would be used to pay continuation costs and related support for the final cohort of new 

5-year Striving Reader grants, which will be awarded in fiscal year 2016. 

Research and assessment data provide strong justification for a continued Federal investment 

in a large-scale reading program based on scientific reading research. For example, in 2015, 

the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reported that more than 60 percent of 

4th- and 8th-grade students are not reading at grade level. Reading achievement for 4th-grade 

students had not changed significantly from what NAEP reported in 2013, and reading 

achievement for 8th-grade students actually worsened. In particular, 8th-grade reading scores 

decreased from 2013 to 2015 for students from low-income families (as defined by eligibility for 

free or reduced-price lunch) and students with disabilities. The results also show continued, 

wide achievement gaps in reading between students from low-income families and students 

from higher-income families: 4th-grade students from higher-income families scored, on 

average, almost 30 points higher than 4th-grade students from low-income families. Further, 52 

percent of 4th-grade students from higher-income families scored Proficient or Advanced in 

2015, compared to 21 percent of 4th-grade students from low-income families. While 8th-grade 

reading achievement worsened across the board in 2015, students from higher-income families 

still scored more than 20 points higher than students from low-income families on reading 

assessments. In 2015, 47 percent of 8th-grade students from higher-income families scored 

Proficient or Advanced, compared to 20 percent of 8th-grade students from low-income families.

A-38
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Comprehensive literacy development grants

Research also shows that students who fail to read well by 4th-grade have a greater likelihood of 

dropping out of school, leading to a lifetime of diminished earnings. Further, the differences in 

the reading skills, including pre-literacy skills, and knowledge of children from low-income 

families as compared to the skills and knowledge of children from higher-income families are 

dramatic. For example, the size of the working vocabulary of 4-year-old children from lowincome families is approximately one-third that of children from middle-income families (Hart & 

Risley, 2003). Research also shows that these early differences in children’s skills persist over 

time. The NCES “Early Childhood Longitudinal Study,” which followed the academic progress 

of children from kindergarten through 5th grade, found, for example, that differences in children’s 

reading skills and knowledge that are usually seen in later grades appear to be present as 

children begin school. 

Research on the Striving Readers program itself yielded useful information about the program’s 

effectiveness—a summary of research on adolescent literacy interventions carried out by the 

program’s 2006 and 2009 cohorts found that 15 studies produced reliable evidence (i.e., the 

evidence was found to meet What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards) on adolescent 

literacy interventions (Boulay & Goodson, 2015). The grantees from the 2006 and 2009 cohorts 

implemented 10 distinct literacy interventions, and in its review the What Works Clearinghouse 

found that four interventions had positive, potentially positive, or mixed effects on reading 

achievement. The Administration will draw on this research to strengthen the use of evidence in 

the fiscal year 2016 Striving Readers competition.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

Funding for new awards 0 $176,700 0

Number of new awards 0 17 0

Funding for continuation awards $157,655 0 $178,600

Number of continuation awards 6 0 17

Peer review of new award applications 0 $1,900 0

Amount for Bureau of Indian 

Education $800 $950 $950

Amount for Outlying Areas $800 $950 $950

National activities (including 

evaluation) $745 $9,500 $9,500

NOTE: Appropriations language for fiscal years 2015 and 2016 authorized the Department to pool evaluation 

funds reserved under section 9601 of the ESEA and use those pooled funds to evaluate any ESEA program. Similar 

authority was included in the ESEA as reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (section 8601) and 

would provide the same flexibility in fiscal year 2017. While the Department did not reserve funds from the Striving 

A-39
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Comprehensive literacy development grants

Readers program under this authority in fiscal year 2015, it may do so from the Comprehensive Literacy 

Development program in fiscal years 2016 and 2017.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in fiscal 

year 2017 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program. 

All States are required to report on the 1st performance measure. States have the option of 

either reporting on the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th performance measures, or reporting proficiency rates for 

those same measures that include students who demonstrate adequate growth under the 

State’s Department-approved growth model and are counted as meeting or exceeding 

proficiency for purposes of accountability determinations.

Objective: To advance literacy skills, including pre-literacy skills, reading, and writing, for 

students from birth through grade 12, including English learners and students with disabilities.

Measure: The percentage of participating 4-year-old children who achieve significant gains in 

oral language skills.

 Year Target Actual

2013 Set baseline 68%

2014 68% 63

2015 68 61

2016 68

2017 68

Additional information: The Department defines “significant gains” as a positive change in 

assessment score for which the effect size was at least .20 standard deviations. This approach 

allows the Department to report standard performance data across States with varying 

assessments. Four-year-old children who are eligible for testing are children in early childhood 

education classrooms participating in a Striving Readers subgrant program.

Measure: The percentage of participating 5th-grade students who meet or exceed proficiency 

on State English language arts assessments.

 Year Target Actual

2013 Set baseline 75%

2014 75% 77

2015 75 72

A-40
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Comprehensive literacy development grants

 Year Target Actual

2016 75

2017 75

Additional information: Data reflect cumulative data across States for all students who 

participated in the Striving Readers program, completed pre- and post- assessments and met or 

exceeded proficiency levels on the State English language arts assessments. In the most 

recent reporting year, no States opted to report on alternative measures of adequate student 

growth.

Measure: The percentage of participating 8th-grade students who meet or exceed proficiency 

on State English language arts assessments.

 Year Target Actual

2012 Set baseline 76%

2013 76% 81

2014 76 71

2015 76 60

2016 76

2017 76

Additional information: Data reflect cumulative data across States for all students who 

participated in the Striving Readers program, completed pre- and post- assessments and met or 

exceeded proficiency levels on the State English language arts assessments. In the most 

recent reporting year, no States opted to report on alternative measures of adequate student 

growth.

Measure: The percentage of participating high school students who meet or exceed proficiency 

on State English language arts assessments.

 Year Target Actual

2012 Set baseline 75%

2013 75% 72

2014 75 65

2015 75 62

2016 75

2017 75

Additional information: Data reflect cumulative data across States for all students who 

participated in the Striving Readers program, completed pre- and post- assessments and met or 

exceeded proficiency levels on the State English language arts assessments. In the most 

recent reporting year, no States opted to report on alternative measures of adequate student 

growth.

A-41
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Innovative approaches to literacy

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title II, Part B, Subpart 2, Section 2226)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: (1)

Budget Authority: 

2016 2017 Change

$27,000 $27,000 0

1 A total of $468,881 thousand is authorized for Part B of Title II. Of the total amount appropriated for Title II, Part 

B, 34.1 percent is authorized for the Innovative Approaches to Literacy and Comprehensive Literacy Development 

Grants programs under Subpart 2.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015, which reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act, included a separate authorization for the Innovative Approaches to Literacy (IAL) 

program. The IAL program, which previously was operated under the broad authority of the 

Fund for the Improvement of Education, supports projects that develop and enhance school 

libraries and support professional development for school librarians, provide early literacy 

services to young children, and provide high-quality books to children and adolescents in lowincome communities. The program may award grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements to 

(1) one or more local educational agencies in which at least 20 percent of the students are from 

low-income families, (2) the Bureau of Indian Education, or (3) eligible national non-profit 

organizations to promote programs that develop literacy skills in low-income communities. 

Grantees may use IAL funds to develop or enhance existing school library programs by 

providing professional learning opportunities to school librarians or refreshing library materials in 

high-need schools; early literacy services, including conducting outreach to parents of young 

children to ensure that families have access to developmentally appropriate materials and are 

encouraged to read aloud to their young children; and distribute high-quality books to children 

and adolescents to increase students’ reading motivation, performance, and frequency.

In an effort to ensure that projects funded under this program are effective, the Administration 

has given priority in past fiscal years, including in fiscal year 2016, to projects that are supported 

by scientifically valid research.

A-42
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Innovative approaches to literacy

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were as follows:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2012 ...........................................................$28,600

2013 .............................................................27,567

2014 .............................................................24,528

2015 .............................................................23,109

2016 .............................................................27,000

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration’s fiscal year 2017 request includes $27 million for Innovative Approaches to 

Literacy, the same as the fiscal year 2016 appropriation. The request includes appropriations 

language that would override the combined authorized funding level for this program and the 

Comprehensive Literacy Development program. All requested funds would be used for 

continuation awards for grants first funded in fiscal year 2016. 

Many schools and districts across the Nation do not have school libraries that deliver highquality literacy programming to children and their families, especially those that serve students 

from low-income families. Additionally, many schools do not have qualified library media 

specialists or sufficient library facilities. Where facilities do exist, they may lack adequate books 

and other materials and resources. In many communities, high-need students, and particularly 

students from low-income families, have limited access to developmentally appropriate reading 

material in their homes. In light of these challenges, Innovative Approaches to Literacy grants 

support research-based activities and book distribution efforts that are designed to increase 

student achievement and motivation in reading. For example, in 2015 one grantee distributed 

over 150,000 books, with plans to distribute an additional 150,000 in 2016, to children through 

community book fairs, summer story hours at local libraries, and end-of-school events. The 

grantee organizes events where volunteers work with parents to model how to read with a child, 

and also provides incentives to children to read with their families for specific lengths of time. 

Another current grantee partnered with a resource center and a local library to provide 

developmentally appropriate books for young children, encouraged parents to read with their 

children, and provided a health and wellness presentation in a low-income community. 

In fiscal year 2016, the program may give priority to applicants that propose to support students’ 

literacy achievement in rural communities or in schools with high percentages of students from 

low-income families. The Department is also considering ways to encourage applicants to 

incorporate technology into their efforts. 

A-43
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Innovative approaches to literacy

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

Funding for new awards $1,014 $26,636 0

Number of new awards 2 35 0

Funding for continuation awards $22,095 $94 $27,000

Number of continuation awards 32 2 35

Peer review of new award applications 0 $270 0

NOTE: Appropriations language for fiscal years 2015 and 2016 authorized the Department to pool evaluation 

funds reserved under section 9601 of the ESEA and use those pooled funds to evaluate any ESEA program. Similar 

authority was included in the ESEA as reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (section 8601) and 

would provide the same flexibility in fiscal year 2017. While the Department did not reserve funds from the Innovative 

Approaches to Literacy program under this authority in fiscal year 2015, it may do so in fiscal years 2016 and 2017.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in fiscal 

year 2017 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program.

The Administration established the following performance measures for grantees under this 

program: 

Measure: The percentage of 4-year-old children participating in the project who achieve 

significant gains in oral language skills.

Year Target Actual

2013 70% 56%

2014 70 70

2015 70 76

2016 70

2017 70

A-44
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Innovative approaches to literacy

Measure: The percentage of participating 3rd-grade students who meet or exceed proficiency 

on State reading or language arts assessments.

Year Target Actual

2013 70% 65%

2014 70 52

2015 70 46

2016 70

2017 70

Measure: The percentage of participating 8th-grade students who meet or exceed proficiency 

on State reading or language arts assessments.

Year Target Actual

2013 70% 81%

2014 70 53

2015 70 61

2016 70

2017 70

Measure: The percentage of participating high school students who meet or exceed proficiency 

on State reading or language arts assessments. 

Year Target Actual

2013 70% 84%

2014 70 61

2015 70 61

2016 70

2017 70

Note that grantees were required to report only on measures applicable to the populations 

served, and, therefore, not all grantees reported on each performance measure. In 

fiscal year 2017, the Administration may revise these performance measures to align better with 

the reauthorized ESEA.

A-45
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

State ag en cy programs:

Migrant

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title I, Part C)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: $374,751

Budget Authority: 

P2016 2017 Change

$374,751 $374,751 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Migrant Education program (MEP) provides financial assistance to State educational 

agencies (SEAs) to establish and improve programs of education for children of migratory 

farmworkers and fishers. The goal of the MEP is to enable migrant children: (1) to meet the 

same academic standards as other children; and (2) to graduate from high school or a high 

school equivalency program with an education that prepares them for responsible citizenship, 

further learning, and productive employment. To help achieve this objective, program services 

help migratory children overcome the educational disruption that results from repeated moves. 

The program statute encourages activities to promote coordination of needed services across 

States and encourages greater access for migratory children to services available under Title I 

Grants to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) and other programs authorized under the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), so that MEP funds can be used for services 

not already available from those programs to meet the unique needs of migrant students. 

The Every Student Succeeds Act reauthorized the ESEA and made several changes to the 

MEP. Major changes to the program include revising the allocation formula to include current 

data; more clearly defining student eligibility (e.g., including moves that result in obtaining 

agricultural work even if that was not the original purpose of the move); and clarifying that 

migratory children who made a qualifying move in the previous year and children who have 

dropped out of school should receive priority for services under the program. 

Eligible children are children of migratory agricultural workers or migratory fishers, or who are 

migratory agricultural workers or fishers themselves, and who have made a "qualifying move" 

within the last 3 years. A move is considered to be a qualifying move if it is a change of 

residence due to economic necessity and (1) involves crossing school district boundaries; (2) is 

made in order to obtain, or resulted in, temporary or seasonal work in agriculture or fishing; and 

(3) was made in the preceding 36 months. 

Funds are allocated through a statutory formula based on each State’s per-pupil expenditure for 

education, its average count of eligible migratory students aged 3 through 21 residing within the 

State in the preceding 3 years, and its count of students who received services in summer or 

intersession programs provided by the State during the previous year. Under a hold-harmless 

A-46
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant 

provision, States are assured at least 90 percent of their previous years’ allocations for fiscal 

years 2017 through 2019.

The Department may set aside up to $10 million from the annual MEP appropriation for 

contracts and grants to improve inter- and intra-State migrant coordination activities, including 

academic credit accrual and exchange programs for migrant students. The Department is 

required to consult with States receiving allocations of $1 million or less about whether they can 

increase the cost-effectiveness of their programs by entering into inter-state consortium 

arrangements. By law, the Department may reserve up to $3 million a year from coordination 

funds for incentive grants of not more than $250,000 to such consortia. 

The statute requires the Department to assist States in developing effective methods for the 

electronic transfer of migrant student records. The Department developed the Migrant Student 

Information Exchange System (MSIX) to enable States to exchange migrant student data 

records efficiently and expeditiously and provide an accurate, unduplicated count of the number 

of migrant students on a national and Statewide basis.

This is a forward-funded program. Funds become available for obligation from July 1 of the 

fiscal year in which they are appropriated and remain available through September 30 of the 

following year.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were: 

Fiscal year (dollars in thousands)

2012.........................................................$393,236

2013...........................................................372,751

2014...........................................................374,751

2015...........................................................374,751

2016...........................................................374,751

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

For 2017, the Administration requests $374.8 million for the Title I Migrant program, the same 

amount as the fiscal year 2016 level. The fiscal year 2017 appropriation would continue to 

support activities that identify highly mobile migratory children and youth, provide them 

comprehensive services that address their specific needs, and promote coordination of the 

Federal resources available to serve this population. 

Migrant students represent an especially disadvantaged, hard-to-serve group due to multiple 

risk factors. In particular, the high mobility of these children across school districts and State 

boundaries (sometimes within the school term or year) means that, in general, no single school 

district or State has ongoing responsibility for the education of these students, thus creating a 

need for Federal support to assist in the coordination of services to meet their educational 

needs. The high mobility also creates additional challenges for both students and the school 

systems serving them, such as the need to provide support to students to help them overcome 

the effects of disruptions in their education and helping high school students accrue credits 

towards high school graduation when they change schools often.

A-47
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant 

Moreover, the characteristics of the migrant population create a need for educational services 

that go well beyond services traditionally supported with State and local education budgets. In 

addition to being highly mobile, migrant students tend to live in poverty, have limited English 

proficiency, and belong to families that are likely to experience food and job insecurity and poor 

health and housing conditions. Almost one-third (33.2 percent) of the children and youth eligible 

to receive services under the program during school year 2013-2014 had moved within the 

previous 12 months. In addition, 37.1 percent of eligible children and youth were English 

learners and 6.9 percent of eligible children and youth were eligible to receive services under 

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Migrant children and youth may also help their families perform agricultural work, and a growing 

number of migrant “emancipated youth" travel without a parent or guardian to obtain migratory 

work in the fields and in processing plants. A significant proportion of migrant individuals 

eligible for services under the program (10.8 percent of the eligible population in 2013-2014) are 

school-aged youth who do not attend school. 

Data for 2013-14 indicate that the 347,634 children were identified as eligible under the 

program, and States and local entities provided services to 235,388 migrant students during the 

regular school year and 102,551 during the summer or intersessions. Program funds supported 

3,122 projects that operated during the school day, 472 projects that provided an extended 

school day during the regular school year, 134 summer or intersession projects, and 904 yearround projects. The program served 3,779 children aged birth through 2; 19,451 children aged 

3 through 5; 196,855 children and youth in kindergarten through grade 12; and 15,303 out-ofschool youth. Services provided included supplemental instruction in reading, math, and other 

academic areas, family literacy and preschool instruction, and high school credit accrual. 

Program funds were also used to provide such support services as counseling, health and 

nutrition services, advocacy and referrals for migrant students with disabilities, and (especially in 

the summer) transportation. The Department expects to support a similar level of services 

using fiscal year 2017 funds. 

The Department would reserve approximately $10 million from the fiscal year 2017 

appropriation for migrant coordination and national activities, including $3 million for consortium 

incentive grants. The remainder of the funds would be used for activities related to inter- and 

intra-State coordination, primarily for maintenance and operation of the Migrant Student 

Exchange System (MSIX), including for technical assistance to States as they continue to 

implement their systems for collecting and exchanging data on migrant students.

A-48
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

Number of eligible children 347,634 347,634 347,634

SEA program:

SEA program Amount for State grants $364,751 $364,751 $364,751

SEA program Range of State awards 0-$128,657 0-$128,657 $78-$116,209

Coordination activities:

coor dinati on acti viti esConsortium incentive grants $3,000 $3,000 $3,000

coor dinati on acti viti esMigrant student information 

exchange and related 

coordination activities $7,000 $7,000 $7,000

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

In 2014, the Department adopted new performance measures focused on student 

performance and attainment in reading/language arts and mathematics; student success in 

progressing through school; and success in Algebra, a critical subject for helping students 

attain high school diplomas and enroll in postsecondary education or training. Specific 

measures include: (1) the percentage of migrant students in grades 3-8 who scored at the 

proficient level or above in reading/language arts assessments; (2) the percentage of migrant 

students in grades 3-8 who scored at the proficient level or above in mathematics 

assessments; (3) the percentage of migrant students in grades 7-12 who graduated from high 

school or were promoted to the next grade level; and (4) the percentage of migrant students

who entered the 11th grade who had received full for credit for taking Algebra I. 

The Department will start collecting data for the grade promotion/graduation and Algebra I 

measures in school year 2016-17, when changes in the MSIX take effect that will enable the 

Department to collect these data.

Goal: To assist all migrant students in meeting challenging academic standards and 

achieving graduation from high school (or a high school equivalency credential program) 

with an education that prepares them for responsible citizenship, further learning, and 

productive employment.

A-49
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant 

Objective: Along with other Federal programs and State and local reform efforts, the Migrant 

Education Program will contribute to improved school performance of migrant children.

Measure: The percentage of migrant students in grades 3-8 who scored at the proficient level 

or above on reading/language arts assessments.

Year Target Percentage Actual Percentage

2013 Baseline 44.1%

2014 44.1% 49.6

2015 44.1

2016 44.1

2017 44.1

Measure: The percentage of migrant students in grades 3-8 who scored at the proficient level 

or above on mathematics assessments.

Year Target Percentage Actual Percentage

2013 Baseline 47.6%

2014 47.6% 49.5 

2015 47.6

2016 47.6

2017 47.6

Additional information: The source of the data is the Consolidated State Performance 

Reports that States submit to the Department. States are currently making changes to their 

standards and assessments systems to make them more rigorous. However, since these 

changes have been associated with fluctuation in student performance during this transition 

period, current performance targets are static. The Department plans to reset targets once 

data for school years 2016-17 are available. Data for 2015 will be available in summer 2016.

Efficiency Measures

The Department established an efficiency measure associated with the transfer of migrant 

student records through the MSIX system. The MSIX integrates procedures designed to 

achieve efficiencies and cost reductions by linking separate State and local efforts to transfer 

health and education records into a single system that can be used within and across all States. 

Initially the Department assessed annual changes in the percentage of actively migrating 

students for which MSIX contained consolidated records that reflect a complete history of school 

and health information. As of 2012, MSIX contains consolidated records for migrant students 

who have enrolled in school in more than one State. The Department is now tracking how many 

States are collecting the three types of data elements collected in MSIX for migrant students: 

basic student information, student assessment data, and credit accrual information for

secondary students.

A-50
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant 

Measure: The number of States collecting all the types of data elements collected in MSIX.

Year Target Actual

2013 Baseline 31

2014 31 34

2015 31 36

2016 35

2017 37

Additional information: At the end of fiscal year 2015, 36 out of 47 States participating in the 

migrant education program were collecting all the types of data elements collected in MSIX. 

The Department developed a three-phase plan to help States fully participate in MSIX. Under 

phase one, States were to collect and make available all data elements for basic student 

information, which is required for all migrant students. Under phase two, States would add 

student assessment data, which is required only for migrant students taking State assessments. 

Under phase three, States would add credit accrual information for secondary students. At this 

time, State participation in MSIX is voluntary. Once the Department issues regulations requiring 

States to collect and share data through MSIX, targets will be adjusted to reflect the expectation 

that all States participating in the MEP will collect all three types of data elements. A Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking containing requirements for States pertaining to entering student data 

into and using student data in MSIX was published on December 27, 2013, and the Department 

anticipates that the Notice of Final Rulemaking will be published by spring 2016.

A-51
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected and delinquent

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title I, Part D)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: $47,614

Budget Authority: 

2016 2017 Change

$47,614 $47,614 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Title I Neglected and Delinquent (N and D) program provides financial assistance to State 

educational agencies (SEAs) for provision of education services to neglected and delinquent 

children and youth in State-run institutions, attending community day programs, and in 

correctional facilities. Funds are allocated to States through a formula based on the number of 

children in State-operated institutions and per-pupil education expenditures for the State. Each 

State’s N and D allocation is generated by child counts in State institutions that provide at least 

20 hours of instruction a week from non-Federal funds; adult correctional institutions must 

provide 15 hours a week. State institutions serving children with an average length of stay of at 

least 30 days are eligible to receive funds. Adult correctional institutions must give priority for 

services to youth who are likely to be released within a 2-year period.

The N and D program is authorized by Part D of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act, as reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015. Major changes to 

the program under the reauthorization include emphasizing the attainment of regular high 

school diplomas as the preferred program outcome; improving transitions for youth between 

correctional facilities and local education programs and schools, particularly to provide for 

educational continuity, to ensure credit accrual, and to support the successful completion of high 

school and pathways into postsecondary education and the workforce; expanding the programs 

to better include students served by the Bureau of Indian Education or tribal schools; focusing 

on the unique needs of children who have interacted with both the child welfare system and the 

justice system; and allowing local programs to use funds for pay-for-success initiatives. 

Like other Title I programs, the N and D program requires institutions receiving funds to gear 

their services to the same college- and career-ready State academic standards that all children 

are expected to meet under the ESEA. Similar to the school-wide program option under the 

Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies program, all juvenile facilities may operate 

institution-wide education programs in which they use N and D program funds in combination 

with other available Federal and State funds. This option allows juvenile institutions to serve a 

larger proportion of their eligible population and to align their programs more closely with other 

education services in order to meet participants’ educational and occupational training needs. 

States are required to reserve between 15 and 30 percent of their allocations for projects to help 

N and D participants make the transition from State institutions to locally operated programs or 

A-52
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected and delinquent 

to support the successful entry of youth offenders into postsecondary and career and technical 

education programs.

The Department may reserve up to 2.5 percent of the appropriation for national activities, 

including technical assistance to help build the capacity of State agency programs.

This is a forward-funded program. Funds become available for obligation from July 1 of the 

fiscal year in which they are appropriated and remain available through September 30 of the 

following year.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2012...........................................................$50,231

2013.............................................................47,614

2014.............................................................47,614

2015.............................................................47,614

2016.............................................................47,614

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

For 2017, the Administration requests $47.6 million, the same as the 2016 level, for the 

Neglected and Delinquent (N and D) program. The activities supported with this funding would 

help an estimated 90,000 N and D students return to and complete school and obtain 

employment after they are released from State institutions.

The population served by the N and D program is extremely disadvantaged and isolated. 

Research has shown that the youth served are up to 3 years behind in grade level and generally 

lack job skills. A study by Harris, Baltodano, Bal, Jolivette, and Malcahy (2009) of youth 

incarcerated in three long-term correctional facilities found low levels of reading achievement 

among this population, with significantly lower levels for certain ethnic and racial groups and for 

students in special education. This problem was documented as early as 1996, when a study 

from the Educational Testing Service showed that while most of the inmates in America’s 

prisons would eventually be paroled, two-thirds did not have the literacy skills needed to 

function in society. The findings of these reports show the importance of programs focused on 

improving educational outcomes for neglected and delinquent youth and preparing these 

students for further education or to enter the workforce.

Furthermore, a large number of youth in correctional settings are students with disabilities. The 

2013 count of students with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

showed that over 15,000 children and youth served under that program were in correctional 

settings. In addition, for school year 2013-14, grantees under the N and D program reported 

that over 25,000 youth served in State-operated juvenile detention and correction facilities and 

over 71,000 youth served in locally operated juvenile detention and correction facilities were 

students with disabilities. The overrepresentation of students with disabilities poses additional 

A-53
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected and delinquent 

challenges for institutions who serve these students, who require additional support and 

attention to be successful in school and beyond.

With few exceptions, these young people will reenter our communities, schools, and 

postsecondary institutions. High-quality correctional education can help equip them with the 

skills needed to successfully reenter their communities and either continue their education or 

join the workforce.1

 In short, educating these youth is crucial for reducing re-incarceration rates, 

supporting future success, and strengthening communities. 

The reauthorized ESEA further emphasizes the importance of providing high-quality education 

services to incarcerated youth, especially the provision of supports and planning regarding 

youth’s transition from facilities back to local education programs. Additionally, the inclusion of 

pay-for-success initiatives as an allowable use of funds provides the option for locally operated 

and State-run facilities to take advantage of this promising strategy to improve outcomes for atrisk, neglected, and delinquent youth who are served by this program.

In December 2014, the Departments of Education and Justice released new guidance and 

technical assistance materials to help State and local leaders provide high-quality education to 

youth in juvenile justice facilities (http://www.ed.gov/correctionaled). This guidance built on the 

Task Force Report to the President for the My Brother’s Keeper initiative, which aimed to 

address persistent opportunity gaps faced by boys and young men of color and ensure that all 

young people have the opportunity to reach their full potential

(http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/053014_mbk_report.pdf. In addition, in a 

June 2014 letter to Chief State School Officers and State Attorneys General, the Secretary of 

Education and the Attorney General noted several ongoing Federal initiatives to appropriately 

serve youth in confinement and provide them support as they transition back to their 

communities (http://www.ed.gov/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/doj-dod-ltr.pdf). 

In 2016, the Department will begin an implementation evaluation of the N and D program to 

study correctional education services provided to children in State and local facilities and 

institutions. The study will conduct surveys of State grantees and local subgrantees to examine 

the types of services and strategies that N and D funds support, how State and local agencies 

assist students in transitioning back to schools, how State correctional facilities implement 

institution-wide N and D projects, and how grantees assess the educational outcomes of

participating students. The final report is due at the end of calendar year 2017 and will be used 

to inform continuous program improvement, increase the research base, and improve outcomes 

for students served by this and other similar education programs.

In 2017, the Department would reserve approximately $1.2 million to continue to provide 

technical assistance and other services through the National Evaluation and Technical 

Assistance Center for Children who are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk. Center activities 

1 Lois M. Davis et al., “How Effective Is Correctional Education, and Where Do We Go from Here? The Results of a 

Comprehensive Evaluation” (2014); Lois M. Davis et al., “Evaluating the Effectiveness of Correctional Education: A 

Meta-Analysis of Programs That Provide Education to Incarcerated Adults” (2013).

A-54

 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected and delinquent 

include: (1) developing a national model for evaluating the effectiveness of N and D programs; 

(2) collecting and disseminating information on tools and effective practices that can be used to 

support N and D youth; and (3) providing technical assistance, using experts and practitioners, 

to State agencies.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

Number of participating institutions 676 676 676

Estimated number of students 

served 90,262 90,262 90,262

Average Federal contribution per 

child (whole dollars) $528 $528 $528

Range of awards to States $123-$2,775 $125-$2,762 $125-$2,763

Average State award $899 $898 $899

National activities $1,190 $1,190 $1,190

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance measures

This section presents selected program performance information, including, for example, GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data; and an assessment of the 

progress made toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on 

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in 

FY 2017 and future years, and the resources and efforts invested by those served by this 

program.

Goal: To ensure that neglected and delinquent children and youth will have the 

opportunity to meet the challenging State standards needed to further their education 

and become productive members of society.

Objective: Neglected or delinquent students will improve academic and vocational skills 

needed to further their education.

A-55
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected and delinquent 

Measure: The percentage of students supported through the N and D program who obtain a 

secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent.

Year Target Actual

2012 13.8% 13.0%

2013 14.8 14.9

2014 15.8 13.3

2015 16.8

2016 17.8

2017 18.8

Additional information: The Department revised the performance targets in 2013 to better 

align with recent performance.

Measure: The percentage of students supported through the N and D program earning high 

school course credits.

Year Target Actual

2012 56.6% 52.3%

2013 57.6 58.1

2014 58.6 53.2

2015 59.6

2016 60.6

2017 61.6

Additional information: This measure includes students between the ages of 13 and 21 in 

neglected, juvenile detention, and juvenile correctional institutions, and not students in adult 

correctional institutions. A number of factors may have contributed to the decreases in 

performance for these measures from 2012 to 2013 or 2013 to 2014. In particular, States 

reported serving significantly fewer students, who often had greater academic challenges, as 

they implement efforts to move students out of institutions and back into communities. Also, 

several States with high student counts changed reporting systems, leading to fluctuations in 

their reported results. The Department revised the performance targets in 2013 to better align 

with recent performance.

Measure: The percentage of long-term students supported through the N and D program who 

improve reading skills as measured through State-approved assessments.

Year Target Actual

2012 71.4% 71.1%

2013 72.4 64.4

2014 73.4 67.8

2015 74.4

2016 75.4

2017 76.4

A-56
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected and delinquent 

Measure: The percentage of long-term students supported through the N and D program who 

improve mathematics skills as measured through State-approved assessments.

Year Target Actual

2012 72.9% 71.9%

2013 73.9 65.4

2014 74.9 68.6

2015 75.9

2016 76.9

2017 77.9

Additional information: Student counts are based on the number of long-term students (those 

enrolled in a participating program or facility for 90 or more consecutive calendar days) who 

complete pre- and post-testing in reading and mathematics. These are not the same as the 

State assessments required under ESEA Title I and do not necessarily reflect State proficiency 

levels. The Department revised the performance targets in 2013 to better align with recent 

performance. A number of factors may have contributed to the decreases in performance for 

these measures from 2012 to 2013 or 2013 to 2014. In particular, States reported serving 

significantly fewer students, who often had greater academic challenges, as they implement 

efforts to move students out of institutions and back into communities. Also, several States with 

high student counts changed reporting systems, leading to fluctuations in their reported results.

Efficiency measures

Measure: The cost per high school diploma or equivalent.

Year Target Actual

2012 $4,520 $4,891

2013 4,475 4,873

2014 4,430 5,283

2015 4,386

2016 4,341

2017 4,298

Additional information: This measure attempts to determine program cost efficiency by 

tracking the ratio of the number of participating students achieving a high school diploma or its 

equivalent to the cost of the program. The increase in cost for 2014 may be due to decreases in

the number of students served under the program. The Department revised the performance 

targets in 2013 to better align with recent performance.

A-57
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part A, Subpart 5, Section 418A)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2017 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2016 2017 Change

$44,623 $44,623 0

1

The GEPA extension expires September 30, 2015; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2017.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Special Programs for Migrant Students provide 5-year grants to institutions of higher education 

(IHEs) and private nonprofit organizations to support educational programs designed for 

students who are engaged in, or whose families are engaged in, migrant and other seasonal 

farmwork. 

Projects funded under the High School Equivalency Program (HEP) recruit migrant students 

aged 16 and over and provide academic and support services (including counseling, health 

services, stipends, and placement) to help those students obtain a high school equivalency 

certificate and subsequently to gain employment or admission to a postsecondary institution or 

training program. 

Projects funded by the College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) provide tutoring, academic 

assistance, and counseling services, as well as stipends, tuition, and room and board, to firstyear undergraduate migrant students and assist those students in obtaining student financial aid 

for their remaining undergraduate years. 

HEP projects, located in college or university settings, operate residential and commuter 

programs of instructional services for out-of-school migrant youth; some HEP projects employ a 

commuter model in which students attend GED classes after work. Most CAMP projects use an 

on-campus residential design and provide a high level of support services in order to assist 

participants, virtually all of whom have had no prior contact with a college campus, to adjust to 

life at an institution of higher education. In making awards under both programs, the 

Department is required to consider applicants' prior experience in operating HEP and CAMP 

projects. 

The Department may reserve up to one half of 1 percent of the funds appropriated for Special 

Programs for Migrant Students for outreach, technical assistance, and professional 

development activities. If the total amount appropriated is below $40 million, the remaining 

funds are to be distributed between the two programs in the same proportion as the amounts 

available for each program the previous year. If the appropriation is over $40 million, 45 percent 

A-58
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

of the remaining funds must be used for HEP and 45 percent for CAMP, and the remainder may 

be used for either program, based on the number, quality, and promise of applications received.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were as follows: 

Fiscal Years (dollars in thousands)

2012................................ ..........................$36,526

2013................................ ............................34,623

2014................................ ............................34,623

2015................................ ............................37,474

2016................................ ............................44,623

FY 2017 BUDGET REQUEST

For 2017, the Department requests a total of $44.6 million for the Special Programs for Migrant 

Students, the same amount as the fiscal year 2016 level. The request would support continued 

implementation of programs that have demonstrated success in helping migrant youth who are 

particularly at risk for poor educational, employment, and earnings outcomes. In fiscal 

year 2016, program funding was increased by $7.1 million, which enabled the Department to 

increase significantly the funding for CAMP awards due to statutory provisions regarding the 

distribution of funds for each program at an appropriation level of at least $40 million. In fiscal 

year 2017, at the requested level, the statutory provisions will continue to allow a portion of the 

funds to be used for either program based on the number, quality, and promise of applications 

received. Projects supported by HEP and CAMP funds have provided critical services to 

migrant students, leading to significantly improved outcomes in terms of education and 

employment. Funding the Special Programs for Migrant Students at the request level would be 

an investment in programs proven to work and that serve to multiply the positive impact these 

programs have had on high-needs migrant students.

According to the US Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service (ERS) report, 

“Profile of Hired Farmworkers, a 2008 Update,” farmworkers tend to be younger, less educated, 

and less likely to speak English than other wage and salary workers in the United States. 

Individuals aged 15-21 constituted 15.1 percent of farmworkers in 2006, and 30.0 percent of 

farmworkers had attained less than a 9th-grade education. Further, an ERS analysis of data 

from the US Department of Labor’s “National Agricultural Workers Survey” (NAWS) showed 

that, over the period 1989-2006, the average median years of education for migrant 

farmworkers was 6, compared to 9 for nonmigrant farmworkers. In addition, 66.2 percent of 

migrant farmworkers had no knowledge of English, compared to 27.1 percent for nonmigrant 

farmworkers. Migrant farmworkers are also more likely to have lower hourly wages than 

nonmigrant farmworkers, and their limited education affects their ability to pursue postsecondary 

education or obtain skilled work that pays higher wages. 

A substantial number of migrant youth are living on their own or do not attend school. The 

2002-03 NAWS found that migrant youth working in farmwork and living on their own constituted 

11 percent of the total farm labor force. Their likelihood of being able to support themselves for 

an extended period of time through farmwork is poor. The ERS 2008 Profile reported that 

unemployment rates of farmworkers are double those of all wage and salary workers; that 

A-59
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

farmworkers earned less than other workers; and that the rate of poverty among farmworkers 

was more than double that of all wage and salary employees. Furthermore, State educational 

agencies reported that 10.8 percent of the population eligible to receive services under the 

Migrant Education program authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act

(37,538 youths in school year 2013-14) were school-aged youth who do not attend school. 

The HEP and CAMP programs provide participants with assistance that can enable them to 

improve their earnings potential dramatically. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

“Occupational Outlook Handbook,” 2016-17 Edition, the median hourly wage for agricultural 

workers in 2014 was $9.30, and these types of workers are often paid based on how much they 

do instead of how many hours they work. Furthermore, the “Occupational Outlook Handbook” 

indicates that farming, fishing, and forestry occupations were one of the lowest paid 

occupational groups in the country. By comparison, the National Center for Education Statistics 

reports in “The Condition of Education 2015” that in 2013, the median earnings for full-time, fullyear wage and salary workers aged 25-34 with a high school diploma or equivalent were 

$30,000 (equivalent to $14.42 per hour) and the median was $37,500 for a person with an 

associate’s degree (equivalent to $18.03 per hour). 

HEP and CAMP programs focus on finding and assisting migrant youth who have not been able 

to complete high school or go on to postsecondary education due to limited or inconsistent 

educational opportunity. HEP and CAMP projects emphasize services to out-of-school-youth 

and other eligible individuals by conducting extensive outreach in locations where these youth 

live and work (e.g., farms, production facilities, and labor camps) and providing services at 

locations and times that meet the needs of an out-of-school, working population. Program 

performance data show that the programs’ academic and support services are successful at 

helping participants attain their high school equivalency credentials or complete their first 

academic year in a postsecondary program. Program outcomes compare favorably with 

outcomes for the general population. For example, 96.2 percent of the CAMP participants who 

completed their first academic year in a postsecondary program continued their postsecondary 

education. In contrast, data from the National Center of Education Statistics’ “The Condition of 

Education 2015” show that the retention rate of first-time degree/certificate-seeking 

undergraduates at Title IV institutions was 80 percent from 2012 to 2013.

A-60
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2015 2016 2017

Outreach, technical 

assistance, and 

professional development $187 $223 $223

HEP:

HEP Number of students served 5,374 5,236 5,236

HEP Funding for new awards $6,855 $4,183 $2,338

HEP Number of new awards 16 9-12 5-7

HEP Peer review of new award 

applications $89 $100 $100

HEP Average new grant award $463 $452 $452

HEP Funding for continuation 

awards $13,445 $15,697 $17,542

HEP Number of continuation 

awards 29 35 39

HEP Average Federal contribution 

per student (whole dollars) $3,774 $3,797 $3,797

CAMP:

CAMP Number of students served 1,866 2,209 2,209

CAMP Funding for new awards $5,470 $5,508 $3,816

CAMP Number of new awards 13 13-16 9-11

CAMP Peer review of new award 

applications $89 $100 $100

CAMP Average new grant award $422 423 423

CAMP Funding for continuation 

awards $11,339 $14,372 $16,064

CAMP Number of continuation 

awards 27 34 38

CAMP Peer review of new award 

applications $89 $100 $100

CAMP Average Federal contribution 

per student (whole dollars) $9,002 $9,000 $9,000

Remainder for either 

program based on 

quality and quantity of 

applications:

Remai nder Amount for new awards 0 $4,440 $4,440

Remai nder Number of new awards 0 10-15 10-15

A-61
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program information, including, for example, goals, objectives, 

measures, and performance targets and data consistent with the requirements of the 

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA); and an assessment of the progress made 

toward achieving program results. Achievement of program results is based on the cumulative 

effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in FY 2017 and future 

years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by this program.

Goal: To assist migrant and seasonal farmworker students in obtaining the equivalent of 

a high school diploma, and, subsequently, in beginning postsecondary education, 

entering military service, or obtaining employment.

Objective: An increasing percentage of HEP participants will receive their high school 

equivalency credential.

Measure: The percentage of HEP participants receiving a high school equivalency credential.

Year Target Actual

2012 69.0% 67.4%

2013 69.0 74.5

2014 69.0 66.6

2015 69.0

2016 69.0

2017 69.0

Additional information: The source of data is grantee performance reports. The source of 

data is grantee performance reports. Over the last 5 years, changes to State academic 

standards for elementary and secondary education have driven changes to adult education 

standards and high school equivalency assessments. However, since these changes have 

been associated with fluctuation in student performance during this transition period, current 

performance targets are static. The Department plans to reset targets once data for school 

years 2015-16 are available. Data collected for fiscal year 2015 will be available in the spring of 

2016. 

A-62
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

Objective: An increasing percentage of HEP recipients of a high school equivalency credential 

will enter postsecondary education programs, upgraded employment, or the military.

Measure: The percentage of HEP high school equivalency credential recipients who enter 

postsecondary educational programs, career positions, or the military.

Year Target Actual

2012 80.0% 79.3%

2013 80.0 80.1

2014 80.0 79.9

2015 80.0

2016 80.0

2017 80.0

Additional information: The source of data is grantee performance reports. Data for this 

measure are based on actual placement after receipt of a high school equivalency credential. 

Upgraded employment means a move to a job that provides more hours (and, as a result, 

increased pay); a job with increased benefits; a move to a supervisory position; a move to a new 

job with predefined career ladder, regardless of wage change (for example, becoming a 

management trainee or entering a formal apprenticeship); or a move to a job with higher hourly 

wages, or a higher salary. Participants who were unemployed prior to participation in a HEP 

program and who obtain a job after participation and attainment of a high school equivalency 

credential are also included in this measure. The Department is providing technical assistance 

to grantees on collecting data on program participants after they are no longer receiving 

program services. Data for 2015 will be available in the spring of 2016.

Goal: Assist migrant and seasonal farmworker students in successfully completing their 

first academic year of college and in continuing their postsecondary education.

Objective: All CAMP students will complete their first academic year at a postsecondary 

institution in good standing.

Measure: The percentage of CAMP participants completing the first year of their 

postsecondary program.

Year Target Actual

2012 86.0% 85.5%

2013 86.0 85.1

2014 86.0 86.7

2015 86.0

2016 86.0

2017 86.0

Additional information: The source of data is grantee performance reports. Data for projects 

completing their first year of implementation are not included in the data for any given year 

because projects receive their initial funding in the fall, after the school year may have already 

A-63
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

started. Thus, the measure reflects the percentage of participants completing the first year of 

their postsecondary program between the second and fifth year of the project. Data collected 

for fiscal year 2015 will be available in the spring of 2016. 

Objective: A majority of CAMP students who successfully complete their first academic year of 

college will continue in postsecondary education.

Measure: The percentage of CAMP participants who, after completing the first academic year 

of college, continue their postsecondary education.

Year Target Actual

2012 85.0% 96.7%

2013 85.0 95.0

2014 85.0 96.2

2015 85.0

2016 85.0

2017 85.0

Additional information: The source of data is grantee performance reports. Data for this 

measure are based on actual placement after completion of the first year of college. The 

Department is providing technical assistance to grantees on collecting data on program 

participants once the participants are no longer receiving program services. Data for 2015 will 

be available in the spring of 2016. 

Efficiency measures

The Department established a cost-per-participant outcome measure to assess program 

efficiency for HEP and CAMP. For HEP, the measure is the cost per participant earning a GED 

credential and, for CAMP, it is the cost per participant who completes his or her first year of 

postsecondary education and then continues that postsecondary education. The Department 

established different costs for programs serving participants who commute, programs serving 

participants who reside at the institution of higher education where the program is based, and 

programs with both types of participants. Targets are based on actual costs in 2011 (the 

baseline year), multiplied by an estimated rate of inflation for college-associated costs and then 

decreased by an expected improvement in efficiency annually of 1 percent. Data for 2015 will 

be available in the spring of 2016.

A-64
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

HEP Efficiency Measures

Measure: Cost per participant earning a GED, commuter programs.

Year

Target Cost Per Participant

Earning a GED

Actual Cost Per Participant

Earning a GED

2012 $7,910 $5,766

2013 8,306 5,409

2014 8,718 5,985

2015 9,104

2016 9,509

2017 9,931

Measure: Cost per participant earning a GED, residential programs.

Year

Target Cost Per Participant

Earning a GED

Actual Cost Per Participant

Earning a GED

2012 $15,459 $11,201

2013 16,195 9,667

2014 16,962 12,750

2015 17,719

2016 18,511

2017 19,338

Measure: Cost per participant earning a GED, programs with both commuting and resident 

students.

Year

Target Cost Per Participant

Earning a GED

Actual Cost Per Participant

Earning a GED

2012 $12,502 $11,160

2013 13,104 7,589

2014 13,732 7,433

2015 14,344

2016 14,984

2017 15,653

A-65
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

CAMP Efficiency Measures

Measure: Cost per participant completing the first year of postsecondary education and 

continuing postsecondary education, commuter programs.

Year

Target Cost Per Participant

Completing the First Year of 

Postsecondary Education 

and Continuing 

Postsecondary Education

Actual Cost Per Participant

Completing the First Year of 

Postsecondary Education and 

Continuing Postsecondary 

Education

2012 $12,003 $9,111

2013 12,543 10,686

2014 13,107 10,170

2015 13,697

2016 14,314

2017 14,958

Measure: Cost per participant completing the first year of postsecondary education and 

continuing postsecondary education, residential programs.

Year

Target Cost Per Participant

Completing the First Year of 

Postsecondary Education 

and Continuing 

Postsecondary Education

Actual Cost Per Participant

Completing the First Year of 

Postsecondary Education and 

Continuing Postsecondary 

Education

2012 $19,236 $14,860

2013 20,102 14,534

2014 21,007 12,521

2015 21,952

2016 22,940

2017 23,972

Measure: Cost per participant completing the first year of postsecondary education and 

continuing postsecondary education, programs with both commuting and resident students.

Year

Target Cost Per Participant

Completing the First Year of 

Postsecondary Education 

and Continuing 

Postsecondary Education

Actual Cost Per Participant

Completing the First Year of 

Postsecondary Education and 

Continuing Postsecondary 

Education

2012 $14,628 $11,748

2013 15,286 10,701

2014 15,974 11,512

2015 16,693

2016 17,444

2017 18,229

A-66
State tables

A-67