Department of Education

EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Request

CONTENTS

Page

Appropriations Language ........................................................................................................... 1

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes.......................................................................... 3

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers ................................................................................. 6

Summary of Changes ................................................................................................................ 7

Authorizing Legislation............................................................................................................... 8

Appropriations History................................................................................................................ 9

Significant Items in FY 2024 Appropriations Reports.................................................................10

Summary of Request ................................................................................................................12

Activities:

Grants to local educational agencies ....................................................................................14

Comprehensive literacy development grants ........................................................................28

Innovative approaches to literacy..........................................................................................35

Migrant education .................................................................................................................40

Neglected, delinquent, and at-risk children and youth...........................................................50

Special programs for migrant students .................................................................................59

Account Summary Table...........................................................................................................68

State Tables*

*State tables reflecting actual fiscal year 2023 allocations and fiscal years 2024 and 2025 

estimates are posted on the Department’s webpage at: 

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

1 

Appropriations Language

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"), $19,287,790,000, of which 

$8,359,490,000 shall become available on July 1, 2025, and shall remain available through 

September 30, 2026, and of which $10,841,177,000 shall become available on October 1, 2025, 

and shall remain available through September 30, 2026, for academic year 2025–2026:

1

Provided, That $6,459,401,000 shall be for basic grants under section 1124 of the ESEA:

2

Provided further, That up to $5,000,000 of these funds shall be available to the Secretary of 

Education (referred to in this title as "Secretary") on October 1, 2024, 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 $5,382,550,000 shall be for targeted grants under section 1125 

of the ESEA:5 Provided further, That $5,382,550,000 shall be for education finance incentive 

grants under section 1125A of the ESEA:

6 Provided further, That of the amounts available under 

the preceding two provisos the Secretary may reserve up to $10,000,000 to pay the costs of 

voluntary State school funding equity commissions and the costs of voluntary local education 

agency equity reviews:

7 Provided further, That subsection (b) of section 1004 of the ESEA shall 

be applied by substituting the sum of the amounts appropriated for parts A, C, and D of title I of 

the ESEA by division H of Public Law 117-328 for each of the amounts specified in that 

subsection:8 Provided further, That subsection (a)(2) of section 1004 of the ESEA shall be 

applied by substituting "$800,000" for "$400,000" and by substituting "$100,000" for "$50,000":

9

Provided further, That $224,000,000 shall be for carrying out subpart 2 of part B of title II:

10

Provided further, That, notwithstanding subsection (f)(1) of section 2222 of the ESEA, each 

State education agency that receives a grant under section 2222 of the ESEA may use up to 10 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Appropriations Language—continued 

2 

percent of its grant funds to evaluate the activities supported by such grant:11 Provided further,

That $52,123,000 shall be for carrying out section 418A of the HEA:12 Provided further, That

notwithstanding section 418A(g)(2)(A) of the HEA, the Secretary may reduce the percentage of 

funds available for a program if the Secretary determines that there are not a sufficient number 

of high-quality applications for that program.13 

GENERAL PROVISIONS

SEC. 313. Of the amounts appropriated in this Act for part C and part D of title I of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and for subtitle B of title VII of the McKinneyVento Homeless Assistance Act, the Secretary may use not more than 0.5 percent for a single 

program of competitive grant awards to State educational agencies for demonstration projects 

(including by subgrants) to improve service delivery and coordination for at-risk student 

groups.14

NOTES 

A full-year 2024 appropriation for this account was not enacted at the time the Budget was prepared; therefore, the 

Budget assumes this account is operating under the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2024 and Other Extensions Act 

(Division A of Public Law 118-15, as amended). The amounts included for 2024 reflect the annualized level provided 

by the continuing resolution.

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

Provisions and Changes document which follows the appropriations language.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

3 

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1 ...of which $8,359,490,000 shall become 

available on July 1, 2025, and shall remain 

available through September 30, 2026, and 

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

available on October 1, 2025, and shall 

remain available through September 30, 

2026, for academic year 2025–2026:... 

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, State Agency Migrant and 

Neglected and Delinquent, and 

Comprehensive Literacy Development 

Grants. 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 $5,000,000 of 

these funds shall be available to the 

Secretary of Education (referred to in this title 

as ‘‘Secretary’’) on October 1, 2024, to obtain 

annually updated local educational agencylevel 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 $5,382,550,000 

$6,357,550,000 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 $5,382,550,000 

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. 

7 ...Provided further, That of the amounts 

available under the preceding two provisos 

the Secretary may reserve up to $10,000,000 

to pay the costs of voluntary State school 

funding equity commissions and the costs of 

voluntary local education agency equity 

reviews:... 

This language would allow the Secretary to 

reserve up to $10 million from the 

appropriations for Title I Targeted Grants and

Education Finance Incentive Grants to 

support activities to help school systems 

address inequities in school funding through

voluntary State school funding equity 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes—continued

4 

Language Provision Explanation

commissions and voluntary local educational 

agency equity reviews.

8 ...Provided further, That subsection (b) of 

section 1004 of the ESEA shall be applied by 

substituting the sum of the amounts 

appropriated for parts A, C, and D of title I of 

the ESEA by division H of Public Law 117-

328 for each of the amounts specified in that 

subsection:... 

This language would increase the amount of 

funds States may reserve for administration 

purposes under Section 1004 of the ESEA by 

updating the amount States may use to 

calculate the reservation for program 

administration to the fiscal year 2023 

appropriation levels. 

9 ...Provided further, That subsection (a)(2) of 

section 1004 of the ESEA shall be applied by 

substituting "$800,000" for "$400,000" and by 

substituting "$100,000" for "$50,000":... 

This language would increase the minimum 

amount small States and outlying areas may 

reserve for administration purposes under 

Section 1004 of the ESEA from $400,000 to 

$800,000, and from $50,000 to $100,000, 

respectively. 

10...Provided further, That $224,000,000 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.

11 ...Provided further, That, notwithstanding 

subsection (f)(1) of section 2222 of the ESEA, 

each State education agency that receives a 

grant under section 2222 of the ESEA may 

use up to 10 percent of its grant funds to 

evaluate the activities supported by such 

grant:... 

This language allows SEAs to reserve up to 

10 percent of their Comprehensive literacy 

development grant funds for evaluation.

12...Provided further, That $52,123,000 shall 

be for carrying out section 418A of the 

HEA:...

This language provides funding for Special 

Programs for Migrant Students.

13...Provided further, That notwithstanding 

section 418A(g)(2)(A) of the HEA, the 

Secretary may reduce the percentage of 

funds available for a program if the Secretary 

determines that there are not a sufficient 

number of high-quality applications for that 

program.

This language would allow the Department to 

override the distribution of funds between the 

High School Equivalency Program and the 

College Assistance Migrant Program required 

by the statute and reduce the percentage of 

funds available for a program in the event a 

competition does not yield a sufficient number 

of high-quality applications for one of the

programs. 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes—continued

5 

Language Provision Explanation

GENERAL PROVISIONS

14SEC. 313. Of the amounts appropriated in 

this Act for part C and part D of title I of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 

1965, and for subtitle B of title VII of the 

McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, 

the Secretary may use not more than 

0.5 percent for a single program of 

competitive grant awards to State educational 

agencies for demonstration projects 

(including by subgrants) to improve service 

delivery and coordination for at-risk student 

groups.14

This language would allow the Department to

reserve funds from the Migrant Education 

program, the Neglected, Delinquent, and AtRisk Children and Youth program, and the 

Education for Homeless Children and Youth 

program, to make competitive grants to 

States to improve coordination of services for 

students who face multiple risk factors and 

are eligible for multiple Federal programs. 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

6 

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2023 2024 2025 

Discretionary:

Discretionary Appropriation $19,087,790 $19,087,790 $19,287,790

Total, discretionary appropriation 19,087,790 19,087,790 19,287,790

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 19,087,790 19,087,790 19,287,790
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

7 

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2024 Discretionary $19,087,790

2025 Discretionary 19,287,790

Net change +200,000

Increases: 2024 base

Change

from base

Program:

Increase for Grants to help ensure that all students have access 

to excellent educational opportunities. The increase would also 

support funding for voluntary efforts to identify and address

inequities in State and local funding systems, which often favor 

wealthier districts over districts with concentrated poverty, in 

order to create more equitable school finance systems. $18,386,802 +$200,000

Net change +200,000
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

8 

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity 2024

Authorized

2024 

Annualized CR

2025

Authorized

2025

Request

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

1

LEA grants formulas: 0 To be determined

 LEA grants form ulas Basic grants (Section 1124) $6,459,401 $6,459,401

 LEA grants form ulas Concentration grants (Section 1124A) 1,362,301 1,362,301

LEA grants form ulas Targeted grants (Section 1125) 5,282,550 5,382,550

LEA grants form ulas Education finance incentive grants (Section 1125A) 5,282,550 5,382,550

Comprehensive literacy development grants (ESEA-II-B-2, 

Section 2222)1 194,000

To be determined

194,000

Innovative approaches to literacy (ESEA-II-B-2, Section 2226)1 30,000 To be determined 30,000

State agency programs:

1 To be determined

State ag ency programs Migrant (ESEA I-C) 0 375,626 To be determined 375,626

State ag ency programs Neglected and delinquent (ESEA I-D) 0 49,239 To be determined 49,239

Special Programs for Migrant Students (HEA IV-A-5)2 0 52,123 To be determined 52,123

Total definite authorization 0 To be determined

Total appropriation $19,087,790 $19,287,790

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2021. Reauthorization for FY 2025 is expected through appropriations action.

2 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015. Reauthorization for FY 2025 is expected through appropriations action. 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

9 

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance Footnote

Senate 

Allowance Footnote AppropriationFootnote

20161 $16,592,546 $14,869,641 $15,455,802 $16,016,790

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

20172 16,043,790 15,986,790 16,066,790 16,143,790

(2017 Advance for 2018) (10,841,177) (11,041,177) (10,841,177) (10,767,555)

20183 16,347,558 15,953,790 16,169,198 16,107,781

(2018 Advance for 2019) (10,841,177) (10,841,177) (10,841,177) (10,841,177)

20194 15,926,790 16,443,790 16,568,790 16,543,790

(2019 Advance for 2020) (11,681,898) (10,841,177) (10,841,177) (10,841,177)

20205 16,376,790 17,563,802 16,543,790 16,996,790

(2020 Advance for 2021) (11,681,898) (10,841,177) (10,841,177) (10,841,177)

20216 0 17,258,290 17,121,790 17,226,790

(2021 Advance for 2022) (10,841,177) (10,841,177) (10,841,177) (10,841,177)

20227 37,246,790 36,756,790 33,802,790 18,229,790

(2022 Advance for 2023) (10,841,177) (10,841,177) (10,841,177) (10,841,177)

20238 37,280,551 21,260,551 20,852,667 19,087,790

(2023 Advance for 2024) (10,841,177) (10,841,177) (10,841,177) (10,841,177)

20249 21,254,551 13,055,290 19,262,790 19,087,790

(2024 Advance for 2025) (10,841,177) (10,841,177) (10,841,177) (10,841,177)

2025 19,287,790

(2024 Advance for 2025) (10,841,177)

1 The levels for the 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.

2 The levels for the House and Senate allowances reflect Committee action on the regular annual 2017 appropriation 

bill; the Appropriation reflects the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017. 3 The level for the House allowance reflects floor action on the Omnibus appropriations bill; the Senate allowance 

reflects Committee action on the regular annual 2018 appropriations bill; the Appropriation reflects the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141). 4 The levels for the House and Senate allowance reflect Committee action on the regular annual 2019 appropriations 

bill; the Appropriation reflects enactment of the Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and 

Education Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 115-245). 5 The Senate allowance reflects the Chairman’s mark; the Appropriation reflects the Further Consolidated 

Appropriation Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94). 6 The level for the Senate Allowance reflects the Chairman’s mark; the Appropriation reflects Division H of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260). 7 The House allowance reflects floor action; the Senate allowance reflects the Chair’s mark; and the Appropriation 

reflects Division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103). 8 The House allowance reflects the regular annual FY 2023 appropriation, which was introduced on the floor; the 

Senate allowance reflects the Chairman’s mark; and the Appropriation reflects the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2023 (P.L. 117-328). 9 The House allowance reflects Subcommittee action and the Senate allowance reflects Committee action on the 

regular annual 2024 appropriations bill; the Appropriation reflects the annualized continuing resolution level.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

10

Significant Items in FY 2024 Appropriations Reports

Grants to LEAs

Senate: School Improvement and Support.—The Committee appreciates the 

Department’s targeted monitoring of implementation of ESEA requirements 

related to resource allocation reviews and resource inequities. The Committee 

also appreciates this summer’s release of a dear colleague letter that shares 

recommendations for effectively implementing these requirements. The 

Department also must continue efforts to assist SEAs and LEAs with 

implementing all of the school improvement requirements of ESEA. The 

Committee is concerned the Department has not identified any actions or plans 

to implement direction in the explanatory statement accompanying last year’s 

appropriations act which directed the Department to increase transparency on 

the amount reserved by each State for the school improvement set aside, 

method of distribution to eligible LEAs, and uses of such funds. The Committee 

directs the Department to provide a briefing on actions taken and planned to be 

taken to provide transparency for school improvement investments, including 

information required to be reported in State report cards.

In addition, as was noted in the explanatory statement accompanying last year’s 

appropriations act, more must be done to improve transparency on amounts 

reserved by LEAs under section 1113(c)(3)(A). The Committee understands the 

Department is planning to analyze the variation of per-homeless-pupil amounts 

across LEAs within a State and take other steps to improve the quality of 

reported data. However, this must be accompanied with actions to provide 

transparency on amounts reserved and spent with funds available under such 

section, including effective technical assistance and support being provided to 

title I SEA and LEA leaders on the wide variety of services supported by these 

funds, implementation of an adequate needs assessment, and determination of a 

sufficient reservation under such section. The Committee requests a briefing on 

actions taken and planned on these issues not later than 45 days after 

enactment of this act. 

Response: The Department is exploring ways to promote transparency about how States 

implement school improvement requirements and how much funding they 

reserve to support these efforts. In 2024, the Department plans to conduct 

targeted monitoring in a small number of States (including reviewing information 

from a few LEAs in each State) on ESEA section 1003 school improvement 

provisions. While there is no requirement in the ESEA that a State publish the 

total amount available for school improvement each year under section 1003 of 

the ESEA, our review will examine promising practices to highlight, which may 

include what information the State is making publicly available and how it is being 

made available to support local decision making. Following this targeted 

monitoring, the Department will provide technical assistance to all States on both 

common compliance issues identified and promising practices that other States 

and LEAs may want to incorporate. This may include public reporting of the 

amount of funds available under ESEA section 1003. In addition, the Department 

intends to publish on our website information about State Title I allocations 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Significant Items in FY 2024 Appropriations Reports—continued

11

updated with the Department’s estimated amounts for the school improvement 

reservation under ESEA section 1003. The Department will provide the briefing 

as requested.

Innovative Approaches to Literacy

Senate: The Committee continues to direct the Department to reserve no less than 50 

percent of funds under this program for grants to develop and enhance effective 

school library programs, which may include providing professional development 

to school librarians, books, and up-to-date materials to high-need schools. 

School library programs increase access to a wide range of print and electronic 

resources and provide learning opportunities for all students, particularly those 

who are less likely to have access to such materials at home. In addition, the 

Committee directs the Department to ensure that grants are distributed among 

eligible entities that will serve geographically diverse areas, including rural areas.

Response: The Department plans to continue funding grants that develop and enhance 

effective school library programs and serve geographically diverse areas, 

including rural areas.

Neglected and Delinquent

Senate: The Committee urges the Department to increase its direct and technical 

assistance support to further assist grantees in their efforts to improve and report 

on program outcomes.

Response: The Department will work to increase its efforts to provide support to States on 

implementing data reporting and re-entry requirements. Current technical 

assistance efforts include implementing new monitoring protocols to better 

understand the data collection carried out at the State level, efforts to adjust and 

improve data requirements to expand States’ ability to complete their 

Consolidated State Performance Reports, as well as development of toolkits and 

other resources for States.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

1212

12

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 are authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

(ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The Administration is 

requesting a total of $19.3 billion in fiscal year 2025 for the programs in this account.

The $18.6 billion request for Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) supports 

President Biden’s commitment to increase funding for Title I schools in order to close gaps in 

funding that undermine the ability of our public education system to prepare all students to 

succeed, regardless of their zip code, family income, race, ethnicity, or disability. The program 

supports States and local educational agencies (LEAs) in providing extra academic help to 

students in high-poverty schools. Program funds can be used flexibly for locally determined 

programs and interventions across a broad range of areas, including through schoolwide 

programs that allow Federal and other funds to be consolidated and leveraged for 

comprehensive school reforms. The request would also support funding for voluntary efforts to 

identify and address inequities in State and local funding systems, which often favor wealthier 

districts over districts with concentrated poverty, in order to create more equitable school 

finance systems.

The $194 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 request would provide $30 million for Innovative Approaches to Literacy to continue 

funding grants to LEAs and national nonprofit organizations, to promote literacy programs that 

support the development of literacy skills in low-income communities developing and 

implementing school library programs and providing high-quality, developmentally appropriate, 

and up-to-date reading material to children and adolescents in low-income communities.

The request would provide $375.6 million for the State agency Migrant program to help

children of migratory farmworkers and fishers meet the same academic standards as other 

children; and graduate from high school or a high school equivalency program with an education 

that prepares them for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment.

The request would also provide $49.2 million for the State agency Neglected and Delinquent 

program to support programs that serve students who are educated in institutional settings or 

correctional facilities and will likely transition to local school systems. The request includes a 

proposal allowing the Department to reserve funds from these two programs, and the Education 

for Homeless Children and Youth program, to make competitive grants to States to improve 

coordination of services for students who face multiple risk factors and are eligible for multiple 

Federal programs and for whom no one entity is responsible for the totality of their care. This 

authority would support better coordination of services across funding streams, help ensure 

more effective and efficient use of Federal resources for benefitting students, reduce duplication 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Summary of Request—continued 

1313

13

in services, ensure service continuity, and provide improved service delivery and direct student 

support.

Finally, the request includes $52.1 million for Special Programs for Migrant Students, 

continuing support for programs that have demonstrated success in helping migratory youth, 

who are particularly at risk for low educational, employment, and earnings outcomes, in 

obtaining a high school equivalency certificate or helping first-year undergraduate migrant 

students successfully complete their first year of postsecondary education. 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

14

Grants to local educational agencies 

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2025 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget authority:

Period of fund availability: 

2024 Annualized CR 2025 Request Change

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

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

Targeted grants 5,282,550 5,382,550 +$100,000

Education finance incentive grants 5,282,550 5,382,550 +100,000

Total 18,386,802 18,586,802 +200,000

Annual appropriation 7,545,625 7,745,625 +200,000

Advance for succeeding year 10,841,177 10,841,177 0 to local educati onal agencies

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) provides supplemental education funding, 

especially in communities of concentrated poverty, for local programs that provide educational 

opportunities and additional academic support to help students in schools with high rates of

poverty meet challenging State academic standards. The program serves an estimated 

26 million students in nearly 90 percent of school districts and nearly 60 percent of all public 

schools.

Title I schools help students reach challenging State academic standards through one of two 

models: a targeted assistance model that supplements the regular education program for 

individual students 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 backgrounds, or 

schools in which such students account for at least 40 percent of enrollment, are eligible to 

operate schoolwide programs.

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

of participating schools, including, for example, by establishing preschool programs for eligible 

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2021. Reauthorization for FY 2025 is expected through appropriations 

action.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

15

children under 6 years of age1 and dual or concurrent enrollment programs for secondary 

school 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 underserved students and carry out activities designed to increase parent 

and caregiver engagement.

Title I Grants to LEAs provide the foundation for ESEA’s accountability and improvement 

system for all public schools, which emphasizes State and local responsibilities in the areas of 

meeting challenging academic standards and implementing aligned assessments, measuring 

annual student progress, reporting on performance, and supporting continuous school 

improvement.

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 

understandable 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 one grade in each of three grade spans (3-5, 6-9, and 10-12). These 

assessments must be valid and reliable, include measures that assess higher-order thinking 

skills and understanding of challenging content (which may include measures of student 

academic growth and which may be partially delivered in the form of portfolios, projects, or 

extended performance tasks), and enable achievement results to be disaggregated by major 

racial and ethnic groups, gender, poverty, disability status, English proficiency, migratory status, 

foster care status, homeless status, and military connected status. States may permit LEAs to 

use State-approved, nationally recognized high school assessments 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 

1 The Department has recently released updated guidance to assist States, districts, and schools in leveraging Title I, 

Part A, funds to implement and expand high-quality preschool programs and services. 

https://oese.ed.gov/files/2024/02/Title-I-Preschool-Early-Learning-Guidance-Revised-2023-FINAL.pdf
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

16

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 Title I, State standards and assessments are used to hold LEAs and schools accountable 

for performance through State-determined accountability and improvement systems and identify 

where additional resources and other supports are needed. 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 and, at the State’s discretion, 

extended-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.

States and LEAs receiving Title I funds must disseminate annual report cards that provide 

information on the performance of the State and its LEAs and schools. These report cards must 

be concise, presented in an understandable and uniform format, and accessible to the public, 

and must address minimum content requirements including, among other things: a description 

of the State’s accountability system; information on performance with respect to the interim 

targets, long-term goals, and indicators discussed above; professional qualifications of teachers; 

per-pupil expenditures, including actual personnel and non-personnel expenditures of Federal, 

State, and local funds; and, where available, rates at which high school graduates enroll in 

postsecondary education programs in the year following graduation. Report cards may also 

include any additional information that the State or LEA determines will best provide parents, 

students, and the public with information on school progress. States must prepare a report card 

for the State as a whole, and LEAs must prepare report cards for the LEA as a whole (which 

must include comparisons of achievement on State assessments between the LEA and State) 

and for each school (which must include achievement comparisons between the school and the 

LEA and State).

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 (CSI schools), which must 

include at least the lowest-performing 5 percent of Title I schools and all high schools 

with 4-year graduation rates at or 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 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

17

subgroups performing as poorly as schools in at least the lowest-performing 5 percent of Title I 

schools. These schools then 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 at least the lowestperforming 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 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. States must generally 

reserve for this purpose 7 percent of combined Title I, Part A allocations to LEAs, except that 

the amount a State reserves may not result in a decrease in the amount of Title I funds each of 

its LEAs receives compared to the previous fiscal year.

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 backgrounds 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, suballocations 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 

backgrounds 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 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

18

allocations. For example, the fiscal year 2021 allocations were based on LEA poverty estimates 

for 2019. The Department transfers approximately $5.0 million 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 under the National School Lunch Program—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 other schools. 

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 

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

the Outlying Areas includes $1.0 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 

$14.0 billion, a threshold that has been exceeded each year beginning with fiscal year 2008. 

Under Subpart 2 of Part D of Title I, a State must also reserve funds from its Title I, Part A 

allocation to make subgrants, on a formula or competitive basis, to eligible LEAs with high 

numbers or percentages of children and youth in correctional facilities for children and youth not 

operated by the State, including public or private institutions and community day programs or 

schools that serve delinquent children and youth. Finally, 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 higher-performing public schools. In making such grants, States must 

give priority to LEAs with the highest percentage of schools identified for comprehensive or 

targeted support and improvement, and LEAs must use grant funds to pay for services for 

students in such schools prior to serving other struggling students.

This 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, in thousands of dollars, were:

Fiscal Year

Basic

Grants

Concentration 

Grants

Targeted

Grants

Education 

Finance

Incentive 

Grants Total

2020 $6,459,401 $1,362,301 $4,244,050 $4,244,050 $16,309,802

2021 6,459,401 1,362,301 4,357,550 4,357,550 16,536,802

2022 6,459,401 1,362,301 4,857,550 4,857,550 17,536,802

2023 6,459,401 1,362,301 5,282,550 5,282,550 18,386,802

2024 Annualized CR 6,459,401 1,362,301 5,282,550 5,282,550 18,386,802
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

19

FY 2025 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2025, the Administration requests $18.6 billion for Title I Grants to LEAs, 

$200.0 million more than a fiscal year 2024 annualized CR based on the fiscal year 2023 

appropriation. The request supports President Biden’s commitment to increase funding for Title I 

schools in order to help close gaps in funding that undermine the ability of our public education 

system to prepare all students to succeed, regardless of their zip code, family income, race, 

ethnicity, or disability. The request would support the Administration’s efforts to assist States 

and districts in achieving academic excellence by supporting the conditions to accelerate 

learning, support student achievement, and offer a comprehensive and rigorous education for 

every student as part of the “Raise the Bar: Lead the World” initiative to transform 

prekindergarten through grade 12 (P-12) education. Furthermore, this funding is vital for 

sustaining the instructional supports for educators and students to improve mathematics and 

literacy achievement levels that exceed pre-pandemic performance and close underlying 

opportunity and achievement gaps in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The requested funds are particularly critical in the context of expiring COVID-relief funds. An 

external analysis of districts’ plans for spending American Rescue Plan Elementary and 

Secondary School Emergency Relief Funds found that LEAs planned to spend an estimated 

$57 billion on staffing and academic recovery efforts.1 Title I Grants to LEAs funding will be 

even more critical in fiscal year 2025 as LEAs seek to continue these efforts.

Title I, Part A funds may be used flexibly for locally determined programs and interventions 

across a broad range of areas, including through schoolwide programs that allow Federal and 

other funds to be consolidated and leveraged for comprehensive school reforms. Title I, Part A 

targets funds to schools in which students face concentrated poverty, which allows this program 

to help ensure that all students have access to excellent educational opportunities. By 

expanding this program, school districts can increase services for students that meet their local 

needs, such as by increasing access to and support for preschool, rigorous coursework, 

providing additional individualized support to students, and increasing connections with 

community partners to meet students’ and families’ needs. Title I Grants to LEAs also provide 

the foundation for rigorous statewide Title I accountability systems, which (1) measure student 

and school performance against State-determined academic, English language proficiency, and 

graduation rate indicators; (2) support comprehensive and targeted school improvement efforts; 

and (3) provide transparency around educational performance through State and local report 

cards.

Sustaining Supports That Are Helping Students Recover

SEAs and LEAs are using the historic level of funding provided in the CARES Act, Coronavirus 

Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, and the American Rescue Plan (ARP 

Act) to address the significant academic, social, emotional and mental health needs of students 

resulting from the pandemic. This includes support to reverse the disproportionately negative 

impacts the pandemic has had on already underserved students, including students of color, 

1 https://www.future-ed.org/financial-trends-in-local-schools-covid-aid-spending/
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

20

English learners, students with disabilities, students experiencing homelessness, and students 

from low-income backgrounds. Such efforts include investments to launch and expand 

evidence-based tutoring programs; provide additional summer learning, and afterschool or 

extended learning time programs; hire additional instructional and mental health staff; increase 

the diversity of staff; develop educators to design and implement strategies that support the 

social, emotional, and academic development and needs of students; and trauma-informed 

approaches that support students who have experienced significant trauma. 

COVID-19 funding has been critical to responding to the pandemic and essential to helping 

States and LEAs address longstanding inequities in education and education-related supports 

exacerbated by the pandemic. The President’s Council of Economic Advisers found that the 

Biden-Harris Administration’s unprecedented investment in education helped the U.S. navigate 

the COVID-19 pandemic and stay focused on student success and academic recovery, 

providing crucial supports at a time when other nations saw their rankings fall. Schools, 

teachers, and districts have contributed significantly to this outcome.1 Still, about 44 percent of 

public-school students started the 2023–24 school year behind grade level in at least one 

subject, according to the National Center for Education Statistics’ School Pulse Panel (a study 

collecting information on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic).2 However, the final tranche of 

COVID-19 funds—those provided under the ARP Act—expire on September 30, 2024. 

Consequently, the Department’s Title I request would help alleviate the pressure that States and 

LEAs will be facing upon the expiration of ARP Act funds and provide additional resources to 

ensure that students are able to continue to receive the supports they need to recover fully from 

the long-term effects of lost instructional time due to the pandemic. Title I funds can support 

implementation of proven, evidence-based practices to help students recover from the effects of 

the pandemic and accelerate academic achievement such as addressing chronic absenteeism, 

and providing high-dosage tutoring, and summer, and extended or afterschool learning; support 

for educators, such as math and literacy coaching; increasing access to rigorous coursework 

and content across K-12; and reengaging and supporting students who have become 

disengaged from learning.

Promoting Equity in Education Funding Systems 

To create more equitable school finance systems, the request for fiscal year 2025 would

continue to support voluntary efforts to identify and address inequities in State and local funding 

systems, which often favor wealthier districts over districts with concentrated poverty. Nearly all 

Federal funding for elementary and secondary education is supplemental funding, intended to 

help States and school districts provide high quality educational opportunities and additional 

supports to underserved students, including students from low-income backgrounds in schools 

with high rates of poverty, students with disabilities, and English learners. The underlying 

principle of such supplemental funding, as reflected in the supplement, not supplant and 

1 “Weathering the Storm”: Federal Efforts Helped Bolster U.S. Education Standing Among Peer Nations. The White 

House (https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2023/12/05/weathering-the-storm-federal-efforts-helpedbolster-u-s-education-standing-among-peer-nations/) and https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statementsreleases/2023/08/28/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-highlights-efforts-to-support-k-12-education-as-studentsgo-back-to-school/. 2 https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/spp/results.asp 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

21

comparability requirements in section 1118 of Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act, is that it is provided in addition to an equitable and adequate base of State and 

local education funding. 

Unfortunately, in many States, school districts, and schools, Federal education funding 

compensates for, rather than supplements, an inequitable and inadequate base of State and 

local funds. Nationwide, a 2018 report from The Education Trust found that “the highest poverty 

districts receive about $1,000, or 7 percent, less per pupil in State and local funding than the 

lowest poverty districts.” The funding gap is even starker for students of color, with districts 

enrolling the most students of color receiving roughly $1,800 or 13 percent less per student than 

school districts serving the fewest students of color.1

These data are all the more alarming because of the growing evidence that increased per-pupil 

funding wisely spent leads to improved student outcomes, as do the kinds of changes that extra 

resources can provide, such as more competitive teacher compensation that attracts and 

retains effective educators, early childhood programs, smaller class sizes, and additional 

student supports.2 Most States fall below the funding levels necessary for their children and 

youth living in communities with the highest rates of poverty to achieve national average 

outcomes, and in many States, funding is inadequate for all but the districts with the lowest 

rates of poverty.3 These “extreme interstate variations in funding and student achievement 

outcomes require a new and enhanced Federal role aimed at reducing interstate inequality in 

order to advance the national interest in improved outcomes across States.”4

The Department is proposing appropriations language to encourage and support States and 

LEAs to undertake efforts to identify and develop plans to address inequities in their school 

finance systems and educational opportunities through a proposed reservation of funds that 

would provide up to $10 million in competitive funding to States to support comprehensive 

reviews of school finance systems. These funds would pay the costs of (1) helping States to set 

up voluntary school funding equity commissions and (2) helping local educational agency 

perform voluntary equity reviews. Both activities would include significant and meaningful family 

and community engagement. Voluntary State equity commissions could carry out activities such 

as identification of funding and educational opportunity gaps based on measures of equity and 

adequacy; development of action plans to address existing gaps, including new formulas and 

plans to transition to new formula allocation processes; and public reporting on the State’s 

progress in addressing school funding inequities. Local educational agency equity reviews 

would also examine educational opportunity and funding gaps based on measures of equity and 

adequacy, including analysis of Federal, State, and local resource allocation within an LEA and 

its impact on student opportunities to learn. LEAs might also develop plans to more equitably, 

adequately, and effectively target existing Federal, State, and local resources, and identify 

areas in which more resources are needed. 

1 https://edtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/FundingGapReport_2018_FINAL.pdf 2 See https://www.shankerinstitute.org/resource/does-money-matter-second-edition, 

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w20847/w20847.pdf, and 

https://edlawcenter.org/assets/files/pdfs/publications/Is_School_Funding_Fair_7th_Editi.pdf. 3 https://www.shankerinstitute.org/sites/default/files/The%20Real%20Shame%20of%20the%20Nation.pdf 4 https://www.shankerinstitute.org/sites/default/files/The%20Real%20Shame%20of%20the%20Nation.pdf
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

22

Supporting Program Implementation and Compliance

The Department plans to continue to monitor and expand support for State implementation of 

key provisions in current statute that support educational equity. In 2022, the Department 

carried out a pilot monitoring project in nine States that targeted implementation of resource 

equity provisions in Title I. On July 11, 2023, the Department issued a Dear Colleague letter 

outlining recommendations and additional resources to help States implement school support 

and improvement provisions.1 This letter included a description of the requirement that States 

must periodically conduct a resource allocation review to support school improvement in each 

LEA in the State serving a significant number of schools identified for comprehensive support 

and improvement (CSI), targeted support and improvement (TSI), and additional targeted 

support and improvement (ATSI). The Department encourages States to consider broadening 

this review to include a comprehensive examination of their school finance system that 

incorporates family and community engagement and encompasses activities such as the 

identification of funding gaps based on measures of equity and adequacy and the development 

of action plans to address such gaps. 

In 2023, the Department conducted targeted monitoring in nine States on the public reporting 

requirements in the ESEA, including all State and local report card requirements in ESEA 

section 1111(h) and the reporting requirement regarding progress in addressing 

disproportionate rates of access to ineffective, out-of-field, and inexperienced teachers in ESEA 

section 1111(g)(1)(B). Similar to the process used in the 2022 pilot targeted monitoring 

mentioned above, the Department issued letters to each State outlining areas that required 

further action to be in compliance with statutory requirements. In addition, the Department is 

currently determining how best to provide technical assistance to all States regarding the 

lessons learned and best practices for these requirements.

The Department is also exploring ways to promote transparency about how States implement 

school improvement requirements and how much funding they reserve to support these efforts. 

In 2024, the Department plans to conduct targeted monitoring in a small number of States 

(including reviewing information from a few LEAs in each State) on ESEA section 1003 school 

improvement provisions. While there is no requirement in the ESEA that a State publish the total 

amount available for school improvement each year under section 1003 of the ESEA, our 

review will examine promising practices to highlight, which may include what information the 

State is making publicly available and how it is being made available to support local decision 

making. Following this targeted monitoring, the Department will provide technical assistance to 

all States on both common compliance issues identified and promising practices that other 

States and LEAs may want to incorporate. This may include public reporting of the amount of 

funds available under ESEA section 1003. In addition, the Department intends to publish on its 

website information about State Title I allocations updated with the Department’s estimated 

amounts for the school improvement reservation under ESEA section 1003. 

Another key area identified for additional support and technical assistance are provisions related 

to ensuring educational stability for students in foster care. The Department is currently working 

1 DCL-Title-I-Resource-Equity-for-posting.pdf (ed.gov)
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

23

with the Department of Health and Human Services on updating the 2016 guidance for students 

in foster care, to include additional sections on students in foster care who also have disabilities, 

are English learners, may also be eligible for McKinney Vento services, or are in a Title I, Part D 

facility, and other topics based on questions received since 2016. The updated guidance is 

expected to be released later in 2024. Additionally, in order to support SEAs and LEAs in 

meeting the educational stability requirements for students in foster care, the Department has 

undertaken a number of technical assistance activities, including webinars, communities of 

practice, tools, and additional resources, which will continue in 2024. These technical 

assistance resources will cover all aspects of implementing the ESEA’s educational stability 

requirements, with a focus on data-related practices. This technical assistance builds upon the 

Data-Sharing Snapshots published in March 2023, which highlight the ways eight States are 

sharing data and information across education and child welfare systems to support students in 

foster care and meet reporting requirements.1

The Administration is also proposing appropriations language to increase the amount of funds 

States may reserve for administration purposes under Section 1004 of the ESEA. Although the 

2016 reauthorization of the Act contained new accountability requirements, the limitation on 

administration funds was left unchanged and, as a result, the amount States can set aside for 

this purpose is capped at a level that has not been updated since the No Child Left Behind Act 

was enacted over 20 years ago. Under the new accountability provisions, States are required to 

create a complex system to meaningfully differentiate and identify comprehensive support and 

improvement (CSI) schools; targeted support and improvement (TSI) schools; and additional 

targeted support and improvement (ATSI) schools, and work with LEAs to provide support and 

technical assistance for these schools. Successful implementation of these provisions under 

Title I, Part A requires sustained and adequate resources, particularly from a State’s program 

administration reservation. However, current provisions limit the base amount that may be used 

to calculate the funds a State may use for administration to a level of appropriations that was 

surpassed over a decade ago. States may reserve for administration 1 percent of a State’s 

allocation under Title I, Part A, Title I, Part C (Migrant Education), and Title I, Part D (Neglected 

and Delinquent); or $400,000 ($50,000 in the case of an outlying area), whichever is greater, 

based on what the appropriation for these programs would be if the total amount appropriated 

by Congress for those programs is $14.0 billion or less. This $14 billion cap means that it has 

been years since States have been able to reserve a full 1 percent and the relative amount 

available for program administration has significantly declined over the years. For example, 

comparing the 2002 Title I reservation (converted to 2023 dollars) to the actual capped State 

reservation in 2023 shows that the reservation has decreased by 40% for small States and, for 

a large State like California, it has decreased by 37%. The Administration’s proposal would 

update the amount States may use to calculate the reservation for program administration to the 

fiscal year 2023 appropriation levels (approximately $18.9 billion) and double the minimum 

amount small States and outlying areas may reserve (from $400,000 to $800,000, and from 

$50,000 to $100,000, respectively).

1 Available at https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-formula-grants/school-support-and-accountability/students-fostercare/resources/. 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

24

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

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

Output Measures 2023 2024 2025

Allocations by LEA Poverty Rate:

0-15%

0-15% # of LEAs 6,310 6,611 6,611

0-15% Dollars $4,093,050 $4,586,766 $4,607,258

0-15% % of Total $ 22.63% 25.36% 25.19%

0-15% # of Formula Eligible Children 2,442,203 2,566,016 2,566,016

0-15% $ Per Formula Child $1,676 $1,788 $1,795

15-25%

15-25% # of LEAs 4,428 4,118 4,118

15-25% Dollars $7,622,674 $7,355,905 $7,448,587

15-25% % of Total $ 42.14% 40.66% 40.73%

15-25% # of Formula Eligible Children 3,821,704 3,448,354 3,448,354

15-25% $ Per Formula Child $1,995 $2,133 $2,160

>25% 

>25% # of LEAs 1,996 1,926 1,926

>25% Dollars $6,371,358 $6,147,407 $6,234,054

>25% % of Total $ 35.23% 33.98% 34.08%

>25% # of Formula Eligible Children 2,830,211 2,614,758 2,614,758

>25% $ Per Formula Child $2,251 $2,351 $2,384

LEA Allocation Subtotal $18,087,082 $18,090,078 $18,279,899

BIA/Outlying Areas $202,200 $202,200 $204,400

N&D Program (Part D, Subpart 2) $92,520 $89,524 $87,503

Census Updates $5,000 $5,000 $5,000

Funding for State and local equity reviews 0 0 $10,000

Grants to LEAs Total $18,386,802 $18,386,802 $18,586,802

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures 

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

program 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 Federal resources provided for the program as well as the 

resources and efforts invested by those served by the program. 

Performance measures for this 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.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

25

Measure: The percentage of States that decrease the difference between the percentage of 

economically disadvantaged students in grades 3-8 scoring at or above proficient on State 

reading assessments and the percentage of non-economically disadvantaged students in 

grades 3-8 scoring at or above proficient on State reading assessments.

Year Target Actual

2020 60.0 Not available

2021 64.0 57.6%

2022 68.0 —

2023 68.0 —

2024 72.0 —

2025 76.0 —

Additional information: Data for 2021 are not based on the usual methodology for reporting 

this measure. Performance measures are intended to compare outcomes between consecutive 

years. However, due to waivers of assessment requirements in response to the COVID-19 

pandemic in 2020, data for 2021 are compared to data from 2019. Data for 2021 are reported 

for 33 of 52 SEAs; data are not available for 4 SEAs (Delaware, District of Columbia, Puerto 

Rico, and Vermont). In addition, because the data may not be sufficiently representative for an 

SEA, data are not included for 15 SEAs (Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, 

Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, 

and Virginia). Nineteen SEAs reported decreasing the gap in achievement on reading 

assessments in 2021. These results reflect data reported to the Department by SEAs and 

reviewed through the Department’s data quality review processes. The COVID-19 pandemic 

disrupted the collection and reporting of assessment data beginning in the 2019-20 school year. 

Due to disruptions and restarts in schools due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and 

changes in State assessment practices, the Department urges abundant caution when using 

assessment data for the 2020-2021 school year. The Department continues to provide technical 

assistance to SEAs to improve the quality of the data. Normal reporting will resume for 2022, 

examining the change from the 2020-2021 school year to the 2021-2022 school year. Data for 

2022 will be available in late Spring 2024 and will be included in the fiscal year 2026 

Congressional Justification.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

26

Measure: The percentage of States that decrease the difference between the percentage of 

economically disadvantaged students in grades 3-8 scoring at or above proficient on State 

mathematics assessments and the percentage of non-economically disadvantaged students in 

grades 3-8 scoring at or above proficient on State mathematics assessments.

Year Target Actual

2020 58.0 Not available

2021 62.0 68.6%

2022 66.0 —

2023 66.0 —

2024 70.0 —

2025 74.0 —

Additional information: Data for 2021 are not based on the usual methodology for reporting 

this measure, Performance measures are intended to compare outcomes between consecutive 

years. However, due to waivers of assessment requirements in response to the COVID-19 

pandemic in 2020, data for 2021 are compared to data from 2019. Data for 2021 are reported 

for 35 of 52 SEAs data are not available for 4 SEAs (Delaware, District of Columbia, Puerto 

Rico, and Vermont). In addition, because the data may not be sufficiently representative for an 

SEA, data are not included for 13 SEAs (Alaska, California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Virginia). 

Twenty-four SEAs reported decreasing the gap in achievement on mathematics assessments in 

2021. These results reflect data reported to the Department by SEAs and reviewed through the 

Department’s data quality review processes. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the collection 

and reporting of assessment data beginning in the 2019-20 school year. Due to disruptions and 

restarts in schools due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and changes in State 

assessment practices, the Department urges abundant caution when using assessment data for 

the 2020-2021 school year. The Department continues to provide technical assistance to SEAs 

to improve the quality of the data. Normal reporting will resume for 2022, examining the change 

from the 2020-2021 school year to the 2021-2022 school year. Data for 2022 will be available in 

late Spring 2024 and will be included in the fiscal year 2026 Congressional Justification.

Measure: The percentage of States that decrease the difference between the percentage of 

economically disadvantaged students in grades 3-9 scoring at or above proficient of States 

science assessments and the percentage of non-economically disadvantaged students in 

grades 3-9 scoring at or above proficient on State science assessments.

Year Target Actual

2020 56.7 Not available

2021 60.7 63.0%

2022 64.7 —

2023 64.7 —

2024 68.7 —

2025 72.7 —
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

27

Additional information: Data for 2021 are not based on the usual methodology for reporting 

this measure Performance measures are intended to compare outcomes between consecutive 

years. However, due to waivers of assessment requirements in response to the COVID-19 

pandemic in 2020, data for 2021 are compared to data from 2019. Data for 2021 are reported 

for 27 of 52 SEAs; data are not available for 16 SEAs (Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, 

Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oregon, Puerto 

Rico, Tennessee, and Vermont). In addition, because the data may not be sufficiently 

representative for an SEA, data are not included for 9 SEAs (California, District of Columbia, 

Georgia, Hawaii, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, and Pennsylvania). 

Seventeen SEAs reported decreasing the gap in achievement on science assessments in 2021. 

These results reflect data reported to the Department by SEAs and reviewed through the 

Department’s data quality review processes. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the collection 

and reporting of assessment data beginning in the 2019-20 school year. Due to disruptions and 

restarts in schools due to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and changes in State 

assessment practices, the Department urges abundant caution when using assessment data for 

the 2020-2021 school year. The Department continues to provide technical assistance to SEAs 

to improve the quality of the data. Normal reporting will resume for 2022, examining the change 

from the 2020-2021 school year to the 2021-2022 school year. Data for 2022 will be available 

late Spring 2024 and will be included in the fiscal year 2026 Congressional Justification.

Measure: The percentage of States that decrease the difference between the graduation rate of 

economically disadvantaged students and the graduation rate of non-economically 

disadvantaged students.

Year Target Actual

2020 62.0 60.0%

2021 66.0 35.4

2022 70.0 —

2023 74.0 —

2024 78.0 —

2025 82.0 —

Additional information: Data for 2021 are reported for 48 SEAs; data are not available for 

3 SEAs (Illinois, Texas and Washington). In addition, because the data may not be sufficiently 

representative for an SEA, data are not included for 1 SEA (Mississippi). Seventeen SEAs 

reported decreasing the graduation rate gap in 2021. These results reflect data reported to the 

Department by SEAs and reviewed through the Department’s data quality review processes. 

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the collection and reporting of assessment data beginning in 

the 2019-20 school year. Due to disruptions and restarts in schools and changes in State policy 

(e.g., requirements for graduation), including modified graduation requirements, due to the 

impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Department urges abundant caution when using 

graduation rate data for the 2020-2021 school year. The Department continues to provide 

technical assistance to SEAs to improve the quality of the data. Data for 2022 will be available 

in late Spring 2024 and will be included in the fiscal year 2026 Congressional Justification.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

28

Comprehensive literacy development grants 

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2025 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

Period of fund availability: 

2024 Annualized CR 2025 Request Change

$194,000 $194,000 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Comprehensive Literacy State Development Grants program provides competitive grants to 

State educational agencies (SEAs) to develop or enhance comprehensive literacy instruction 

plans and to make subgrants to eligible entities to support efforts to improve literacy instruction 

in high-need schools and early childhood education programs.

In awarding funds under the Comprehensive Literacy State Development Grants program, the 

Department gives 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 award 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 underserved children and youth, such as children and youth from lowincome backgrounds, children with disabilities, or English learners, and must represent diverse 

geographical areas. Early childhood education programs that receive subgrants must also have 

a demonstrated record of providing comprehensive literacy instruction for children aged birth 

through 5. SEAs must ensure that at least 15 percent of 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. In addition, funds must be distributed 

equitably among grades within the kindergarten through grade 5 and grades 6 through 

12 bands.

An SEA may reserve up to 5 percent of grant funds 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 

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2021. Reauthorization for FY 2025 is expected through appropriations 

action.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Comprehensive literacy development grants

29

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

by the statute. Allowable activities 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.

Of the amount appropriated in a given fiscal year, the Department must 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 also reserve up to 5 percent for national activities, 

including a national evaluation, technical assistance and training, data collection, and reporting.

Comprehensive Literacy State Development Grants is a forward-funded program, with funds 

becoming available on July 1 of the fiscal year in which they are appropriated and remaining 

available for 15 months through September 30 of the following year.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) 

2020 $192,000

2021 192,000

2022 192,000

2023 194,000

2024 Annualized CR 194,000

FY 2025 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2025, the Administration requests $194.0 million for Comprehensive Literacy 

State Development Grants, level with a fiscal year 2024 annualized CR based on the fiscal year 

2023 appropriation. The request would support continuation awards for approximately 25 SEAs 

implementing plans for comprehensive literacy instruction, particularly for underserved students. 

Reading on grade level by third grade is crucial to future academic success. When students 

read on grade level, they are more likely to come to school, be engaged, and graduate on time. 

The request would support the Administration’s efforts to assist States and districts in achieving 

academic recovery and excellence by supporting the conditions to accelerate learning and offer 

a comprehensive and rigorous education for every student as part of the “Raise the Bar: Lead 

the World” initiative to transform P-12 education.

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 the 

2022 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), just 33 percent of 4th-grade 

students1 and 31 percent of 8th-grade students2 scored at or above the proficient level in 

reading. In the 2019 NAEP, 37 percent of 12th-grade students scored at or above the proficient 

1 https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/nation/achievement/?grade=4

2 https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/nation/achievement/?grade=8
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Comprehensive literacy development grants

30

level in reading. The results also show continued, wide gaps in reading performance between 

students from low-income backgrounds and their peers: 46 percent of 4th-grade students from 

higher-income families scored at or above proficient in 2022, compared to 19 percent of 4thgrade students from low-income backgrounds;1 and 41 percent of 8th-grade students from 

higher-income backgrounds scored at or above proficient, compared to 19 percent of 8th-grade 

students from low-income backgrounds.2 We also know that the COVID-19 pandemic has 

impacted educational opportunities and outcomes for many students, including reading 

proficiency. 

Research shows there are wide benefits to exposing children to a wide variety of high-quality 

reading materials for which they can see themselves in and experience other cultures and 

backgrounds. Research also shows that students who fail to read well by 4th-grade have a 

greater likelihood of not graduating high school, leading to a lifetime of diminished earnings and 

other poor outcomes.3 Further, significant differences in reading skills, including pre-literacy 

skills, have been observed between children from low-income backgrounds and other children. 

For example, the size of the working vocabulary of 4-year-old children from low-income 

backgrounds are approximately one-third that of children from middle-income backgrounds.4

Research also shows that these early differences in children’s skills persist over time without 

supports and interventions. The Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, which is conducted by the 

National Center for Education Statistics and follows the academic progress of children from 

kindergarten through 5th grade, has 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 unless supports and interventions are provided.5

The request includes appropriations language to increase the percent of grant funds States are 

allowed to reserve for evaluation.

1 https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/nation/achievement/?grade=4

2 https://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading/nation/achievement/?grade=8

3 Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2010). Early warning! Why reading by the end of third grade matters. KIDS COUNT 

special report. Baltimore, MD: Author. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED509795. 4 Fernald, A., V.A. Marchman, & A. Weisleder. 2013. “SES Differences in Language Processing Skill and Vocabulary 

Are Evident at 18 Months.” Developmental Science 16 (2): 234–48.

5 https://nces.ed.gov/ecls/
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Comprehensive literacy development grants

31

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 20231 2024 2025

Funding for new awards $186,221 0 0

Number of new awards 25 0 0

Funding for continuation awards $4,853 $191,060 $191,060

Number of continuation awards 0 25 25

Peer review of new award applications $200 0 0

Amount for Bureau of Indian Education $970 $970 $970

Amount for Outlying Areas $970 $970 $970

National activities (including evaluation)2 $786 $1,000 $1,000

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

program 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 Federal resources provided for the program, as well as the 

resources and efforts invested by those served by this program. 

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.

1 The Department generally carries Comprehensive Literacy State Development Grants funds over into the 

subsequent fiscal year. Accordingly, the funding from the fiscal year 2023 appropriation shown below will generally be 

obligated in fiscal year 2024. 2 The Department is authorized to reserve up to 0.5 percent of funds appropriated for most ESEA programs,

including Comprehensive Literacy State Development Grants, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA 

program. While the Department did not reserve funds from Comprehensive Literacy State Development Grants for 

this purpose in fiscal year 2023, it may do so in fiscal year 2024 or 2025.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Comprehensive literacy development grants

32

Measure: The percentage of participating 4-year-old children who achieve significant gains in 

oral language skills.

Year Target Actual

2020 52% 75%

2021 75 54

2022 59 58

2023 64 64

2024 62 —

2025 68 —

Additional information: The Department defines “significant gains” as a positive change in 

assessment score for which the effect size was at least 0.20 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 CLSD subgrant program. Data for 2024 will be available 

in 2025. 

Measure: The percentage of participating 5th-grade students who meet or exceed proficiency 

on State English language arts assessments.

Year Target Actual

2020 43% Not applicable

2021 43 34%

2022 39 59

2023 44 37

2024 39 —

2025 41 —

Additional information: Data reflect cumulative results across States for all students who 

participated in the CLSD program, completed pre- and post-assessments, and met or exceeded 

proficiency levels on the State English language arts assessments. The Department waived 

assessment requirements for the 2019-2020 school year due to widespread closures related to 

the COVID-19 pandemic; therefore, the Department does not expect to report actual data for 

these measures for 2020. Data for 2024 will be available in 2025.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Comprehensive literacy development grants

33

Measure: The percentage of participating 8th-grade students who meet or exceed proficiency 

on State English language arts assessments.

Year Target Actual

2020 42% Not applicable

2021 43 38%

2022 43 60

2023 62 37

2024 39 —

2025 41 —

Additional information: Data reflect cumulative results across States for all students who 

participated in the CLSD program, completed pre- and post-assessments and met or exceeded 

proficiency levels on the State English language arts assessments. The Department waived 

assessment requirements for the 2019-2020 school year due to widespread closures related to 

the COVID-19 pandemic; therefore, the Department does not expect to report actual data for 

these measures for 2020. Data for 2024 will be available in 2025.

Measure: The percentage of participating high school students who meet or exceed proficiency 

on State English language arts assessments.

Year Target Actual

2020 39% Not applicable

2021 42 40%

2022 45 61

2023 65 39

2024 41 —

2025 43 —

Additional information: Data reflect cumulative results across States for all students who 

participated in the CLSD program, completed pre- and post-assessments, and met or exceeded 

proficiency levels on the State English language arts assessments. The Department waived 

assessment requirements for the 2019-2020 school year due to widespread closures related to 

the COVID-19 pandemic; therefore, the Department does not expect to report actual data for 

these measures for 2020. Data for 2024 will be available in 2025.

Measure: The percentage of evidence-based activities implemented by subgrantees that meet 

the requirements of strong or moderate evidence.

Year Target Actual

2021 Baseline 69

2022 74% 62

2023 65 85

2024 64 —

2025 89 —
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Comprehensive literacy development grants

34

Additional information: Evidence-based activities that meet the requirements of strong or 

moderate evidence is determined by States based on the definition of evidence-based in section 

8101 of the ESEA. 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

35

Innovative approaches to literacy 

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title II, Part B, Subpart 2, Section 2226) 

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2025 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2024 Annualized CR 2025 Request Change

$30,000 $30,000 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Innovative Approaches to Literacy (IAL) program supports a wide range of projects that 

develop the literacy skills of children and adolescents in communities of concentrated poverty. 

The program may award grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements to local educational 

agencies in which at least 20 percent of the students are from low-income backgrounds, the 

Bureau of Indian Education, or eligible national non-profit organizations. Awards typically are for 

3 years, and grantees may use funds to (1) develop or enhance existing school library programs 

by providing professional learning opportunities to school librarians or updating library materials 

in underserved schools; (2) support 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 (3) distribute books and 

reading materials to children and adolescents to increase students’ reading motivation, 

performance, and frequency.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2020 $27,000

2021 28,000

2022 29,000

2023 30,000

2024 Annualized CR 30,000

FY 2025 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2025, the Administration requests $30.0 million for Innovative Approaches to 

Literacy, level with a fiscal year 2024 annualized CR based on the fiscal year 2023 

appropriation. Funds would be used to support continuation awards for grants awarded in fiscal 

years 2021 and 2023 as well as approximately $11.0 million in new awards.

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2021. Reauthorization for FY 2025 is expected through appropriations 

action.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Innovative approaches to literacy

36

Many schools and districts across the Nation, especially those that serve students from lowincome backgrounds, do not have school libraries that deliver high-quality literacy programming. 

Furthermore, many schools do not have qualified library media specialists or adequate books 

and other resources. In addition, underserved students in many communities have limited 

access to developmentally appropriate reading material in their homes. Over the last several 

years, districts across the country reported losing a total of 1,800 school librarians.1 Innovative 

Approaches to Literacy helps address these challenges by supporting research-based school 

library and early literacy activities and book distribution efforts that are designed to increase 

student motivation and achievement in reading. Research shows there are wide benefits to 

exposing children to a wide variety of high-quality reading materials for which they can see 

themselves in and experience other cultures and backgrounds.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures2 2023 2024 2025

Funding for new awards $7,720 0 $11,000

Number of new awards 12 0 15-20

Peer review $115 0 $300

Funding for continuation awards $22,165 $30,000 $18,700

Number of continuation awards 40 52 52

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

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

program 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 Federal resources provided for the program as well as the 

resources and efforts invested by those served by the program. 

1 Lance, K., & Kachel, D. (2022). https://libslide.org/pubs/Pre-Post-COVID-Analysis-Special-Report.pdf. 2 The Department is authorized to reserve up to 0.5 percent of funds appropriated for most ESEA programs, including 

Innovative Approaches to Literacy, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA program. While the 

Department did not reserve funds from Innovative Approaches to Literacy for this purpose in fiscal year 2023 but may 

do so in fiscal years 2024 and 2025.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Innovative approaches to literacy

37

Performance Measures

Measure: The percentage of 4-year-old children participating in the project who achieve 

significant gains in oral language skills.

Year Target Actual

2020 50% 67%

2021 50 57

2022 50 28

2023 50 —

Additional information: Data in this table represents the fiscal year 2018 and fiscal year 2019 

cohorts. The fiscal year 2022 data for this measure represents the fiscal year 2019 cohort of IAL 

grantees. All fiscal year 2019 grantees reported data for this measure. Note that the IAL 

program discontinued use of this measure in the fiscal year 2021 IAL grant competition. This 

decision was made due to many LEAs not required to provide direct educational service to pre-k 

students. Grantees continue to have to option to support birth to four-year-old children with IAL 

activities but are no longer required to provide data on this measure. Fiscal year 2023 data for 

the fiscal year 2019 grantees is expected to be available in December 2024 and will be included 

in the fiscal year 2026 Congressional Justification. 

Measure: The percentage of fourth graders participating in the project who demonstrated 

individual student growth (i.e., an improvement in their achievement) over the past year on State 

reading or language arts assessments.

Year Target Actual

2020 30% 31%

2021 30 41

2022 30 38

2023 30 —

2024 30 —

2025 30 —

Additional information: For 2022, 28 of 40 (70 percent) grantees reported data for this 

measure. Two of the 40 grantees did not include 4th grade students in their grant program and 

the remaining ten grantees did not report data. Because this is the first reporting year for the 

fiscal year 2021 cohort, some grantees used year one as a baseline year and will report student 

4th grade student growth data in years 2-5. Fiscal year 2023 performance data is expected to be 

available in June 2024 and will be included in the fiscal year 2026 Congressional Justification.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Innovative approaches to literacy

38

Measure: The percentage of eighth graders participating in the project who demonstrated 

individual student growth (i.e., an improvement in their achievement) over the past year on State 

reading or language arts assessments.

Year Target Actual

2020 30% 29%

2021 32 40

2022 32 49

2023 32 —

2024 35 —

2025 35 —

Additional information: For 2022, 27 of 40 (68 percent) grantees reported data for this 

measure. Two of the 40 grantees did not include 8th grade students in their grant program and 

the remaining eleven grantees did not report data. Because this is the first reporting year for the 

fiscal year 2021 cohort, some grantees used year one as a baseline year and will report 8th 

grade student growth data in years 2-5. Fiscal year 2023 performance data is expected to be 

available in June 2024 and will be included in the fiscal year 2026 Congressional Justification. 

Measure: The percentage of schools participating in the project whose book-to-student ratios 

increase from the previous year. 

Year Target Actual

2020 99% 100%

2021 99 99

2022 99 99

2023 99 —

2024 99 —

2025 99 —

Additional information: For 2022, 33 of 40 (83 percent) grantees reported data for this 

measure. Because this is the first reporting year for the fiscal year 2021 cohort, some grantees 

used year one as a baseline year and will report their increase in book-to-student ratios in years 

2-5. Fiscal year 2023 performance data is expected to be available in June 2024 and will be 

included in the fiscal year 2026 Congressional Justification.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Innovative approaches to literacy

39

Measure: The percentage of participating children who receive at least one free, grade- and 

language-appropriate book of their own.

Year Target Actual

2020 98% 100%

2021 98 99

2022 99 89

2023 99 —

2024 99 —

2025 99 —

Additional information: For 2022, 38 of 40 (95 percent) grantees reported data for this 

measure. Fiscal year 2023 performance data is expected to be available in June 2024 and will 

be included in the fiscal year 2026 Congressional Justification. 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

40

Migrant education 

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2025 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

Period of fund availability: 

2024 Annualized CR 2025 Request Change

$375,626 $375,626 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 migratory children and youth: (1) to 

meet the same challenging State academic standards as other children and youth; and (2) to 

graduate from high school or a high school equivalency program with an education that 

prepares them for responsible citizenship, continued education, and employment. To help 

achieve this objective, program services help migratory children and youth 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 migratory students. 

Eligible children and youth 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) resulted in temporary or seasonal work in agriculture or fishing; and (3) was made in the 

preceding 36 months. Migratory children and youth who made a qualifying move in the previous 

year and children and youth who have left school without a diploma receive priority for services 

under the program. 

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. 

The Department may reserve up to $10.0 million from the annual MEP appropriation for 

contracts and grants to improve inter- and intra-State migrant coordination activities, including 

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2021. Reauthorization for FY 2025 is expected through appropriations 

action.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant education

41

academic credit accrual and exchange programs for migratory students. The Department is 

required to consult with States receiving allocations of $1.0 million or less about whether they 

can increase the cost-effectiveness of their programs by entering into inter-state consortium 

arrangements; in fiscal year 2023, 12 States received allocations under $1.0 million, but none 

had entered into consortia with other States under this provision. The Department may reserve 

up to $3.0 million a year from coordination funds for incentive grants of not more than $250,000 

to such consortia. Funds not reserved for consortia are used for formula grants.

Other coordination funds are used primarily for the Migrant Student Information Exchange 

System (MSIX), which supports the electronic transfer of migratory student records as required 

by statute. MSIX enables States to exchange migrant student data records efficiently and 

expeditiously and helps to provide an accurate, unduplicated count of the number of migratory 

students on both a statewide and national 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) 

2020 $374,751

2021 375,626

2022 375,626

2023 375,626

2024 Annualized CR 375,626

FY 2025 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2025, the Administration requests $375.6 million for the Title I Migrant Education 

Program (MEP), level with a fiscal year 2024 annualized CR based on the fiscal year 2023 

appropriation. The request would support the Administration’s efforts to assist States and 

districts in achieving academic recovery and excellence by supporting the conditions to 

accelerate learning and offer a comprehensive and rigorous education for every student as part 

of the “Raise the Bar: Lead the World” initiative to transform P-12 education. 

Migratory children and youth represent an especially underserved and hard-to-serve group due 

to multiple risk factors. In particular, the high mobility of these children and youth across school 

districts and State boundaries (sometimes within the school term or year) often means that no 

single school district or State has ongoing responsibility for the education of these children and 

youth. The MEP assists in the coordination of services among States and districts to meet their 

needs, such as the need for additional supports to help students to overcome the effects of 

disruptions in their education and helping high school students accrue credits towards 

graduation. Additionally, the challenges the States faced during the COVID-19 pandemic, such 

as school closures and social distancing, exacerbated these obstacles and highlighted the need 

for States to continue identifying eligible migratory children and youth outside of traditional 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant education

42

school settings, and to adapt instructional and support services to address the changing needs 

of migratory children and youth.

Moreover, the characteristics of the migratory population create a need for educational services 

that go beyond those traditionally supported with State and local education funds. In addition to 

being highly mobile, migratory children and youth tend to live in poverty, have limited English 

proficiency, and their families are more likely to experience food and job insecurity as well as 

poor health and housing conditions. During the 2021-22 school year, 274,258 children, ages 

birth through 21 years old, were identified as eligible for services through the Migrant Education 

Program (MEP). Of these children, 8.6 percent were identified as students with disabilities under 

the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. In addition, of eligible children ages 3 through

21 years old, 44.6 percent were English learners and 31.8 percent were classified as having 

priority for services under the program (meaning they had made a qualifying move within the 

past 12 months, and either failed or were most at risk of failing to meet State standards or had 

left school without a diploma.) 

Migratory children and youth may also help their families perform agricultural work, and many 

migratory “emancipated youth" travel without a parent or guardian to obtain migratory work in 

the fields and in agricultural processing. In 2021-22, 10.9 percent of eligible children and youth

aged birth through 21 years old were identified as out-of-school youth or school-aged youth who 

do not attend school. 

During school year 2021-22, States and local entities provided instructional or support services 

funded in whole or in part with program funds to 192,856 migratory children or youth ages birth 

through 21 years old. Instructional services included supplemental instruction in reading, 

mathematics, and other academic areas, as well as high school credit accrual. Program funds 

were also used to provide support services such as counseling, health and nutrition services, 

advocacy, social services, and (especially in the summer) transportation. The Department 

expects to support a similar level of services using fiscal year 2025 funds. 

The Department would continue to reserve approximately $10.0 million in fiscal year 2025 for 

coordination activities to serve migratory children and youth, including $3.0 million for 

consortium incentive grants. The remainder of the funds would be used for contract activities 

related to inter- and intra-State coordination, including administration and technical assistance 

related to the Migrant Student Information Exchange System (MSIX). 

Improving Service Delivery and Coordination for Highly At-Risk Students

The fiscal year 2025 request also includes a proposal to improve coordination of services for 

students who face multiple risk factors and, as a result, are eligible for multiple Federal 

programs, including students who are migratory. Each of these programs is designed to support 

the unique needs of students through coordination with multiple agencies and systems, such as

state and local child welfare agencies, housing agencies and providers, and community-based 

organizations. The number of students who qualify for services provided under multiple federal 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant education

43

programs and deal with life circumstances that jeopardize their educational stability and success

is significant. For example, 

• A report published in 2021 by the Children’s Data Network showed that almost two-thirds of 

youth in the Los Angeles County juvenile justice system were previously involved with the 

county’s child welfare system.1

 

• A report published in 2021 by the Poverty Solutions at the University of Michigan found that 

students who were homeless in school year 2014-15 were 14 times more likely to enter 

foster care in school year 2015-16 than students who were not homeless the previous 

school year.2

 

• In Colorado 28% of students enrolled in the Migrant Education Program experienced 

homelessness in school year 2017-18.3

 

Because students are often eligible to receive services from multiple programs, no one entity is 

responsible for the totality of their care and they risk being overlooked or losing out on critical 

services, in particular if they are highly mobile and change schools frequently. As a result, it can 

be difficult for SEAs and LEAs to properly identify students who qualify for services under 

multiple programs and effectively coordinate and target services across multiple funding 

streams. Since these programs can be part of different systems (e.g., child welfare system, 

justice system, school system), tracking the services requires a degree of collaboration that 

often does not exist. Families are then left to bridge the gaps in these systems to advocate for 

the needs of their students, which can be a daunting task. These challenges can contribute to 

lower engagement and academic performance for such students and a disruption of student 

supports such as special education and mental health services. Furthermore, there are limited 

resources to engage in meaningful coordination and alignment of activities across these existing 

programs to ensure that eligible students benefit from the full array of services and supports 

available, including data sharing and analysis, staff cross-training, and formalizing partnerships 

with other pertinent agencies and community-based organizations. 

Some states have taken steps to address the need to improve coordination across relevant 

education and social service programs. For example, Colorado established the Educational 

Stability Grant Program in 2018 to improve the educational progress and outcomes of highly 

mobile students including students of migratory families, students involved in child welfare, and 

students whose housing is unstable or who are homeless. As part of this program, ten school 

districts in that State received a total of approximately $805,662 annually, with an average grant 

1 Herz, D. C., Eastman, A., Mccroskey, J., Guo, L., & Putnam-Hornstein, E. (n.d.). The Intersection of Child Welfare & 

Juvenile Justice: Key findings from the Los Angeles dual system youth study AUTHORS. Datanetwork.org. Retrieved 

October 9, 2023, from https://www.datanetwork.org/wpcontent/uploads/LADS-study.pdf. 2 Erb-Downward, J., Cooney, P., Blakeslee, M., Nothaft, A., Merchant, S., Evangelist, M., & Peterson, N. (2021). The 

educational implications of homelessness and housing instability in Detroit. Poverty Solutions, University of Michigan. 

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED614809.pdf. 3 Myers, K., & Rosa, J. (2019). Educational stability grant program annual evaluation report. State.Co.Us. 

https://www.cde.state.co.us/studentsupport/20192020esgrpt. 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant education

44

amount of $80,000. Recipients use these funds to coordinate across programs within the district 

and with local county agencies and community-based organizations. In just two short years, 

these pilots have contributed to improved student attendance and academic performance.1 The 

Administration is requesting appropriations language under General Provisions to authorize a 

limited demonstration project to provide additional resources to SEAs and LEAs to address the 

challenge of coordinating services for students. 

The proposal would authorize the Department to reserve up to one-half of one percent of funds 

appropriated for the Migrant Education, Neglected and Delinquent, and Education for Homeless 

Children and Youths program for the Department to make competitive grants to SEAs to 

improve service delivery and coordination for at-risk students who are eligible to receive 

services under multiple Federal education programs. SEAs would have the authority to make 

subgrants to LEAs to carry out these activities. Ultimately, this authority would support better 

coordination of services across funding streams, help ensure more effective and efficient use of 

Federal resources for benefitting students, reduce duplication in services, ensure service 

continuity, and provide improved service delivery and direct student support. Funding could 

support personnel, training and professional development, data collection and analysis, and 

documentation of best practices to shore up SEA and LEA capacity to address needs of 

students that qualify for multiple programs (like migratory students and students experiencing 

homelessness) across ED grant funds. 

The Department would evaluate this demonstration project and disseminate information on best 

practices in this area. The Department may also seek appropriations language in the future to 

allow SEAs to also reserve funds from their allocations under specified programs to expand 

their work on enhancing service delivery and promoting coordination of services for students 

through technical assistance and funding to LEAs and schools for this purpose.

1 Burciaga, J., & Brett, B. (2021). Educational stability grant program annual evaluation report. 

State.Co.Us. https://www.cde.state.co.us/studentsupport/20202021esgrpt-0. 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant education

45

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2023 2024 2025

Number of eligible children aged 

birth through 21

274,258 274,258 274,258

SEA program:

SEA program Amount for State grants $365,626 $365,626 $363,743

SEA program Range of State awards 0-$112,301 0-$120,507 0-$119,806

Coordination activities:

coor dinati on activiti es Consortium incentive grants $3,000 $3,000 $3,000

coor dinati on activiti es Migrant student information 

exchange and related 

coordination activities $7,000 $7,000 $7,000

Improving Service Delivery and 

Coordination 0 0 $1,883

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

program 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 Federal resources provided for the program as well as 

the resources and efforts invested by those served by the program. 

Goal: To assist all migratory 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.

Objective: Along with other Federal programs and State and local reform efforts, the Migrant 

Education Program will contribute to improved school performance of migratory children.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant education

46

Measure: The percentage of migratory students in grades 3-8 who scored at the proficient 

level or above on State reading/language arts assessments.

Year Target Percentage Actual Percentage

2020 33.4% Not available

2021 30.0 21.4%

2022 31.0 22.7

2023 33.0 —

2024 33.0 —

2025 26.6 —

Additional information: The source of the data is EDFacts, the Department’s system for 

States to submit kindergarten through grade 12 data. Data for 2020 are not available because 

the Department waived assessment requirements for 2019-2020 due to widespread closures 

related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, given the continued impacts of the COVID-19 

pandemic on assessment administration and reporting, 2020-2021 data may be incomplete and 

should be interpreted with caution. The Department re-set the target starting in 2025 to account 

for the lingering effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the proficiency results for migratory 

students, and has also undertaken targeted technical assistance efforts to States. Data for 2023 

will be available in late summer of 2024 and will be included in the fiscal year 2026 

Congressional Justification.

Measure: The percentage of migratory students in grades 3-8 who scored at the proficient 

level or above on State mathematics assessments.

Year Target Percentage Actual Percentage

2020 32.5% Not available

2021 30.0 17.2%

2022 31.0 18.0

2023 33.0 —

2024 33.0 —

2025 20.4 —

Additional information: The source of the data is EDFacts, the Department’s system for 

States to submit kindergarten through grade 12 data. Data for 2020 are not available because 

the Department waived assessment requirements for 2019-2020 due to widespread closures 

related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, given the continued impacts of the COVID-19 

pandemic on assessment administration and reporting, 2020-2021 data may be incomplete and 

should be interpreted with caution. The Department re-set the target starting in 2025 to account 

for the lingering effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the proficiency results for migratory 

students, and has also undertaken targeted technical assistance efforts to States. Data for 2023 

will be available in late summer of 2024 and will be included in the fiscal year 2026 

Congressional Justification.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant education

47

Measure: The percentage of MEP students who were enrolled in grades seven through 

twelve, and graduated or were promoted to the next grade level.

Year Target Percentage Actual Percentage

2020 N/A 67.3%

2021 N/A 70

2022 N/A 69

2023 N/A —

2024 67.0 —

2025 68.8% —

Additional information: The source of the data is EDFacts, the Department’s system for 

States to submit kindergarten through grade 12 data. The Department established measures for 

grade promotion/graduation and success in Algebra I (a critical subject for helping students 

attain high school diplomas and enroll in postsecondary education or training) but had not 

established targets for these measures until there sufficient quality data was available to set 

targets. The current target is based on a 3-year average of actual data. Data for 2023 will be 

available in late summer of 2024 and will be included in the fiscal year 2026 Congressional 

Justification.

Measure: The percentage of MEP students who entered 11th grade that had received full 

credit for Algebra I or equivalent.

Year Target Percentage Actual Percentage

2020 N/A 37.1%

2021 N/A 42

2022 N/A 42

2023 N/A —

2024 39.0 —

2025 40.4% —

Additional information: The source of the data is EDFacts, the Department’s system for 

States to submit kindergarten through grade 12 data. The Department established measures for 

grade promotion/graduation and success in Algebra I (a critical subject for helping students 

attain high school diplomas and enroll in postsecondary education or training) but had not 

established targets for these measures until there sufficient quality data was available to set 

targets. The current target is based on a 3-year average of actual data. Data for 2023 will be 

available in late summer of 2024 and will be included in the fiscal year 2026 Congressional 

Justification.

Efficiency Measures

The Department established an efficiency measure associated with the transfer of migratory 

student records through the MSIX system that tracks how many States are collecting the three 

types of data elements collected in MSIX for migratory children and youth: basic student 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant education

48

information, student assessment data, and credit accrual information for secondary school 

students.

Measure: The number of States collecting all the types of data elements collected in MSIX.

Year Target Actual

2020 46 46

2021 46 46

2022 46 46

2023 46 —

2024 46 —

2025 46 —

Additional information: By September 2018, all 46 participating states were certified to submit 

all three phases of MSIX data, including basic student information, student assessment data, 

and credit accrual information. Although the target has been achieved, the Department 

continues to work with States to ensure the completeness and quality of the data entered into 

the system. Data for 2023 will be available in late summer of 2024 and will be included in the FY 

2026 Congressional Justification.

Other performance information

In August 2019, the Department released the Study of the Implementation of the ESEA Title I, 

Part C Migrant Education Program report.1 The study examined how State MEP grantees and

local/regional subgrantees implemented the program’s four central components—identification 

and recruitment, records transfer, service delivery, and coordination and collaboration—to help 

reduce barriers to school success for the children of migratory agricultural workers and 

migratory fishers. The study included surveys of State MEP grantees and local/regional MEP 

subgrantees, as well as interviews with a sample of State, regional, and local MEP grantees. 

Highlights from the report include:

• States play a significant role in recruiter training, monitoring, and quality control, but many 

rely on their local/regional MEP subgrantees and outside contractors to manage the 

identification and recruitment process, including hiring, deploying, and supervising MEP 

recruiters. 

• MEP coordinators used both academic performance and academic risk factors to determine 

migratory children’s Priority for Services status.

• More than two-thirds of State MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators reported 

that MSIX moderately or substantially improved timely notification when migratory children 

moved across States. The majority of local/regional MEP coordinators reported that MSIX 

1 https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#migrant
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant education

49

moderately or substantially improved other practices intended to mitigate educational 

disruptions for migratory children, such as the facilitation of course credit accrual 

(62 percent), appropriateness of course placements (63 percent), appropriateness of grade 

placements (63 percent), timeliness of school enrollment (59 percent), and reduction in 

unnecessary immunizations (53 percent). About half of the State MEP directors also agreed 

that MSIX had moderately or substantially improved these other practices.

• Most State MEP directors considered multiple data sources and factors in determining what 

services to provide or fund for migratory children, including results from the needs 

assessments of migratory children (100 percent of State MEP directors), the amount of MEP 

funding available (98 percent), migratory student outcome data (98 percent), and availability 

of services from other programs.

• More than a third of State MEP grantees directly provided supplemental instructional 

services and other academic supports to migratory children, including college and career 

supports and subject-area instruction. At the local level, 93 percent of local/regional MEP 

subgrantees directly provided supplemental instructional services and academic supports to 

migratory children, the most common of which included reading and language arts 

instruction, mathematics instruction, and academic guidance and advocacy.

• Local/regional MEP coordinators also reported providing instructional services and other 

academic supports to out-of-school youth, the most common of which were academic 

guidance and advocacy, reading and language arts instruction, career exploration and 

guidance, and mathematics instruction.

• State MEP grantees and local/regional MEP subgrantees also provided an array of support 

services to address the social, emotional, and health issues that migratory children regularly 

experience that can impact their ability to attend and succeed at school. More than a third of 

State MEP grantees provided direct support services to migratory children, including 

leadership development and language support. Ninety-two percent of local/regional 

coordinators reported providing direct support services to migratory children, including 

distribution of school supplies, language supports (e.g., translation or interpretation 

services), and individual student advocacy services.

• Most State MEP directors and local/regional MEP coordinators participated in outreach 

activities to engage with other agencies and organizations in supporting the needs of 

migratory children. However, half, or fewer State MEP grantees and local/regional MEP 

subgrantees had formal agreements articulating their commitments to collaborate with other 

agencies and organizations to address the needs of migratory children. 

The findings offer a clearer picture of the services States and local/regional subgrantees provide 

to migratory children and youth and have been used to guide the Department’s technical 

assistance efforts.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

50

Neglected, delinquent, and at-risk children and youth 

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title I, Part D, Subpart 1) 

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2025 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2024 Annualized CR 2025 Request Change

$49,239 $49,239 0 t and at-risk 

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The overall purpose of Title I, Part D of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) is 

to support prevention and intervention programs for children and youth who are neglected, 

delinquent, or at-risk (1) to help them meet the same challenging State academic standards that 

all children and youth in the State are expected to meet; (2) to provide them the services 

needed to make a successful transition from institutionalization to further schooling or 

employment; and (3) to prevent at-risk youth from dropping out of school, and to provide 

disconnected youth and students who have dropped out or are returning from correctional 

facilities or institutions for neglected or delinquent children and youth, with a support system to 

ensure their continued education and the involvement of their families and communities.

Subpart 1 of Title I Part D receives a direct appropriation to provide financial assistance to State 

educational agencies (SEAs), which in turn must make subgrants to State agencies which 

provide free public education to neglected and delinquent (“N and D”) children and youth who 

are in State-run institutions, attending community day programs, and in correctional facilities. 

Funds are allocated to States through a formula based on a count of children and youth in 

State-operated institutions and per-pupil education expenditures for the State. Each State’s N 

and D count is based on the number of children and youth enrolled for at least 20 hours of 

instruction a week in State institutions or community day programs for neglected or delinquent 

children and youth, or at least 15 hours of instruction in adult correctional institutions. 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 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 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Similar to the school-wide program option 

under the Title I, Part A Grants to Local Educational Agencies program, all juvenile facilities may 

operate institution-wide education programs in which they use 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 

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2021. Reauthorization for FY 2025 is expected through appropriations 

action.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected, delinquent, and at-risk children and youth

51

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 

program participants make the transition from State institutions to locally operated programs or 

to support the successful entry of youth into postsecondary and career and technical education 

programs.

Subpart 2 of Part D of Title I authorizes a separate companion program that provides funding for 

local educational agencies (LEAs). SEAs use funds reserved from their allocations under Title I, 

Part A to make subgrants to eligible LEAs with high numbers or percentages of children and 

youth in locally operated correctional facilities for children and youth, including public or private 

institutions and community day programs or schools that serve children and youth. SEAs have 

the option of awarding subgrants to eligible LEAs by formula or through a discretionary grant 

process.

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) 

2020 $47,614

2021 48,239

2022 48,239

2023 49,239

2024 Annualized CR 49,239

FY 2025 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2025, the Administration requests $49.2 million for the Neglected, Delinquent and 

At-Risk Children and Youth program, level with a fiscal year 2024 annualized CR based on the 

fiscal year 2023 appropriation. The 2015 reauthorization of the ESEA included expanded 

requirements for Subpart 1 grant recipients, such as emphasizing the attainment of regular high 

school diplomas as the preferred program outcome, and requiring more effective 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. The 

request reflects the Administration’s commitment to address resource inequities across our 

education system, particularly for underserved students such as students in correctional 

institutions or other institutional settings.

High-quality education in correctional institutions can help equip students with the skills needed 

to successfully reenter their communities and either continue their education or join the 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected, delinquent, and at-risk children and youth

52

workforce.1 Correctional facilities face unique challenges in educating children and youth in their 

care. The length of stay in correctional facilities and participation in educational programs by 

eligible children and youth vary widely, ranging from a few months to several years in State 

adult correctional facilities and days to months in juvenile detention facilities. This means 

Subpart 1 grantees must develop a variety of strategies to help ensure the continuity of the 

education of the students they serve and a successful transition back into their communities and 

schools. To support Subpart 1 grantees, the Department is examining ways in which technical 

assistance can be provided to improve and accelerate the transition for youth leaving 

correctional facilities. The Department will continue its efforts to provide support to States on 

implementing data reporting and re-entry requirements. Current technical assistance efforts 

include implementing new monitoring protocols to better understand the data collection carried 

out at the State level, efforts to adjust and improve data requirements to expand States’ ability 

to respond to the Consolidated State Performance Report, as well as development of various 

toolkits and other resources for States. 

In addition, approximately 33 percent (13,870) of the youth served by the program in school 

year 2021-2022 were students with disabilities. The large share of students with disabilities 

presents additional considerations for institutions because such students typically require 

additional, specialized support and attention to be successful in school and beyond. Research 

has shown that a significant portion of individuals impacted by the criminal justice system have 

dyslexia2 which can negatively impact academic and behavioral outcomes. To address this 

issue, the Department will explore strategies to provide technical assistance on targeting and 

improving services to students with disabilities, particularly those with dyslexia, both while in 

correctional settings and during transition and re-entry into their communities and schools. 

Improving Service Delivery and Coordination for Highly At-Risk Students

The fiscal year 2025 request also includes a proposal to improve coordination of services for 

students who face multiple risk factors and, as a result, are eligible for multiple Federal 

programs, including students who are neglected and delinquent. Each of these programs is 

designed to support the unique needs of students through coordination with multiple agencies 

and systems, such as state and local child welfare agencies, housing agencies and providers, 

and community-based organizations. The number of students who qualify for services provided 

under multiple federal programs and deal with life circumstances that jeopardize their 

educational stability and success is significant. For example, 

• A report published in 2021 by the Children’s Data Network showed that almost two-thirds 

of youth in the Los Angeles County juvenile justice system were previously involved with 

the county’s child welfare system.3

 

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). 2 Cassidy, Journal of Correctional Education, Sep 2021, Vol. 72 Issue 2, p61-81; Moody KC, “Prevalence of dyslexia 

among Texas prison inmates”. Tex Med. June 2000. 3 Herz, D. C., Eastman, A., Mccroskey, J., Guo, L., & Putnam-Hornstein, E. (n.d.). THE INTERSECTION OF CHILD 

WELFARE & JUVENILE JUSTICE: Key findings from the Los Angeles dual system youth study AUTHORS. 

Datanetwork.org. Retrieved October 9, 2023, from https://www.datanetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/LADS-study.pdf. 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected, delinquent, and at-risk children and youth

53

• A report published in 2021 by the Poverty Solutions at the University of Michigan found 

that students who were homeless in school year 2014-2015 were 14 times more likely to 

enter foster care in school year 2015-2016 than students who were not homeless the 

previous school year.1

 

• In Colorado 28% of students enrolled in the Migrant Education Program experienced 

homelessness in school year 2017-2018.2

 

Because students are often eligible to receive services from multiple programs, no one entity is 

responsible for the totality of their care and they risk being overlooked or losing out on critical 

services, in particular if they are highly mobile and change schools frequently. As a result, it can 

be difficult for SEAs and LEAs to properly identify students who qualify for services under 

multiple programs and effectively coordinate and target services across multiple funding 

streams. Since these programs can be part of different systems (e.g., child welfare system, 

justice system, school system), tracking the services requires a degree of collaboration that 

often does not exist. Families are then left to bridge the gaps in these systems to advocate for 

the needs of their students, which can be a daunting task. These challenges can contribute to 

lower engagement and academic performance for such students and a disruption of student 

supports such as special education and mental health services. Furthermore, there are limited 

resources to engage in meaningful coordination and alignment of activities across these existing 

programs to ensure that eligible students benefit from the full array of services and supports 

available, including data sharing and analysis, staff cross-training, and formalizing partnerships 

with other pertinent agencies and community-based organizations. 

Some states have taken steps to address the need to improve coordination across relevant 

education and social service programs. For example, Colorado established the Educational 

Stability Grant Program in 2018 to improve the educational progress and outcomes of highly 

mobile students including students of migratory families, students involved in child welfare, and 

students whose housing is unstable or who are homeless. As part of this program, ten school 

districts in that State received a total of approximately $805,662 annually, with an average grant 

amount of $80,000. Recipients use these funds to coordinate across programs within the district

and with local county agencies and community-based organizations. In just two short years, 

these pilots have contributed to improved student attendance and academic performance.3 The 

Administration is requesting appropriations language under General Provisions to authorize a 

limited demonstration project to provide additional resources to SEAs and LEAs to address the 

challenge of coordinating services for students. 

1 Erb-Downward, J., Cooney, P., Blakeslee, M., Nothaft, A., Merchant, S., Evangelist, M., & Peterson, N. (2021). The 

educational implications of homelessness and housing instability in Detroit. Poverty Solutions, University of Michigan. 

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED614809.pdf. 2 Myers, K., & Rosa, J. (2019). Educational stability grant program annual evaluation report. State.Co.Us. 

https://www.cde.state.co.us/studentsupport/20192020esgrpt. 3 Burciaga, J., & Brett, B. (2021). Educational stability grant program annual evaluation report. State.Co.Us. 

https://www.cde.state.co.us/studentsupport/20202021esgrpt-0. 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected, delinquent, and at-risk children and youth

54

The proposal would authorize the Department to reserve up to one-half of one percent of funds 

appropriated for the Migrant Education, Neglected and Delinquent, and Education for Homeless 

Children and Youths program for the Department to make competitive grants to SEAs to 

improve service delivery and coordination for at-risk students who are eligible to receive 

services under multiple Federal education programs. SEAs would have the authority to make 

subgrants to LEAs to carry out these activities. Ultimately, this authority would support better 

coordination of services across funding streams, help ensure more effective and efficient use of 

Federal resources for benefitting students, reduce duplication in services, ensure service 

continuity, and provide improved service delivery and direct student support. Funding could 

support personnel, training and professional development, data collection and analysis, and 

documentation of best practices to shore up SEA and LEA capacity to address needs of 

students that qualify for multiple programs (like migratory students and students experiencing 

homelessness) across ED grant funds. 

The Department would evaluate this demonstration project and disseminate information on best 

practices in this area. The Department may also seek appropriations language in the future to 

allow SEAs to also reserve funds from their allocations under specified programs to expand 

their work on enhancing service delivery and promoting coordination of services for students 

through technical assistance and funding to LEAs and schools for this purpose.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2023 2024 2025

Number of participating institutions 728 728 728

Estimated number of students served 55,361 55,361 55,361

Average Federal contribution per 

child (whole dollars) $867 $867 $867

Range of awards to States 0-$3,436 0-$3,487 0-$3,469

Average State award $923 $923 $918

Technical assistance $1,231 $1,231 $1,231

Improving Service Delivery and 

Coordination 0 0 $246

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

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

program 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 Federal resources provided for the program as well as the 

resources and efforts invested by those served by the program. Fiscal year 2023 performance 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected, delinquent, and at-risk children and youth

55

data is expected to be available in April 2024 and will be included in the fiscal year 2026 

Congressional Justification.

Performance Measures

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.

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

2020 21.8% 13.6%

2021 22.8 14.4

2022 23.8 16.3

2023 23.8 —

2024 23.8 —

2025 23.8 —

Additional information: The source of the data is EDFacts, the Department’s system for 

States to submit kindergarten through grade 12 data. The percentage of students obtaining their 

GED or high school diploma in 2021 increased from the previous year. Actual values for 2021 

represent 49 (of 51) grantees reporting both age data and at a minimum one of two outcomes—

receiving a GED or high school diploma. Data are unavailable for two States and three 

additional States did not report outcomes of students after their departure of a Title I, Part D 

program. Twenty-one additional States reported zeroes for outcomes after students exited the 

program. This may be due, in part, to legal prohibitions against collecting data on students after 

facility exit in some States, or difficulty tracking students across academic settings. 

Measure: The percentage of students supported through the N and D program earning high 

school course credits.

Year Target Actual

2020 64.6% 52.1%

2021 65.6 61.7

2022 66.6 50.4

2023 66.6 —

2024 66.6 —

2025 66.6 —

Additional information: The source of the data is EDFacts, the Department’s system for 

States to submit kindergarten through grade 12 data. This measure includes high school course 

credits earned while in the N and D program as well as those earned up to 90 days after exiting 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected, delinquent, and at-risk children and youth

56

the program. The measure includes students between the ages of 13 and 21 in juvenile 

detention and juvenile correctional institutions, and not students in adult correctional institutions. 

The percentage of students obtaining high school course credits increased in 2021 from the 

previous year. Actual values for 2021 represent 47 grantees (of 51 with applicable programs) 

reporting age and outcome data for programs other than adult corrections. Data are unavailable 

for two States and two States reported students earning high school course credits only in adult 

corrections.

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

2020 79.4% 58.8%

2021 80.4 61.7

2022 81.4 56.0

2023 81.4 —

2024 81.4 —

2025 81.4 —

Additional information: The percentage of students showing improvement in reading 

increased in 2021 from the previous year. The discrepancy between the target and actual 

numbers of students achieving the outcome may be attributable to a number of factors, 

including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on both education and testing. Moreover, the 

long-term students who completed reading pre- and post-test exams only represented 

51 percent of the total number of long-term students (an increase from the 46 percent of 

students reporting reading assessment data in 2020, but still lower than the 56 percent of 

students reporting these data in 2019. Furthermore, the States that reported data on long-term 

students who completed reading pre- and post-test exams in 2021 represented 48 (of 51) 

grantees, compared with 51 grantees that reported results in 2020.

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

2020 80.9% 59.3%

2021 81.9 61.0

2022 82.9 56.8

2023 82.9 —

2024 82.9 —

2025 82.9 —

Additional information: The source of the data is EDFacts, the Department’s system for 

States to submit kindergarten through grade 12 data. 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 percentage of students showing improvement in 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected, delinquent, and at-risk children and youth

57

mathematics in 2021 increased from the previous year. The discrepancy between the target 

goal and actual numbers of students achieving the outcome may be attributable to a number of 

factors, including the quality of the data reported by facilities and challenges to educational 

programs or testing due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, the long-term students who 

completed mathematics pre- and post-test exams in 2021 only represented 50 percent of the 

total number of long-term students reported, which is an increase from 2020, but still lower than 

in 2019. Furthermore, the States that reported data on long-term students who completed 

mathematics pre- and post-test exams in 2021 represented 48 grantees (out of 51), compared 

with 51 grantees that reported results in 2020.

Efficiency measures

Measure: The cost per high school diploma or equivalent.

Year Target Actual

2020 $4,170 $8,127

2021 4,128 11,479

2022 4,087 9,585

2023 4,087 —

2024 4,087 —

2025 4,087 —

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 substantial increase in cost for 2021 may in part be 

due to educational disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, including a decrease in the 

number of students receiving diplomas. 

Other performance information

In March 2019 the Department released Promoting Education and Transition Success for 

Neglected and Delinquent Youth: An Evaluation of the Title I, Part D Program,1 which included 

surveys and case studies 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 institutionwide N and D projects, and how grantees assess the educational outcomes of participating 

students. Highlights from the report include:

• Program funds represented less than 10 percent of education budgets for State agencies 

responsible for providing education services to neglected and delinquent children and youth 

1 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies 

Service, Promoting Education and Transition Success for Neglected and Delinquent Youth: An Evaluation of the 

Title I, Part D Program, Washington, DC, 2019. Available at 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html. 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected, delinquent, and at-risk children and youth

58

who are in State-run institutions, attending community day programs, and in correctional 

facilities. On average, State facilities received $82,000 in program funds.

• State facilities spent the majority of their funds on personnel expenses; however, many 

State agency coordinators (54 percent) reported shortages of qualified instructional and 

support staff, and about one-third of State agency coordinators reported that it was a major 

or moderate challenge to hire staff within their credentialed content area.

• Transition plans were generally created while in placement, and youths tended to be 

substantially involved in transition planning activities. However, substantial involvement of 

parents and other family members in transitional planning was not as prevalent.

• Nearly all State agency coordinators reported that their facilities provided career and 

technical education; the most common career pathways available included construction and 

architecture, consumer and culinary services, and computer and information sciences.

• Most facilities evaluated students to determine if they had a disability and needed special 

education and related services; 91 percent of State agency coordinators and 77 percent of 

local agency coordinators responded that their facilities provided such services.

• Almost all State agency coordinators (94 percent) reported that their facilities assessed 

students’ education outcomes. Outcomes were most often assessed via information 

assessments and standardized formation and summative assessments. 

• Once youth exited placement, more than half of State facilities provided some form of 

aftercare services (such as support for continued secondary or postsecondary education, 

and counseling), although the duration was usually less than 2 months after exiting the 

facility. However, State coordinators generally reported that it was very difficult to track 

academic outcomes for students after exiting, and 58 percent reported that facilities were 

unable to track outcomes for any youth after they exited placement.

• For State facilities that were able to track post-placement outcomes, the most tracked 

outcomes were high school equivalency credentials, followed by employment and other 

labor market outcomes and high school graduation rates.

• SEA coordinators reported a greater focus on reviewing subgrantee applications, supporting 

Federal data collection, and conducting program compliance monitoring than on assisting 

with program planning and implementation.

• At the time of the data collection, few State agency coordinators reported that their facility 

implemented an institution-wide N and D project.

These and other findings suggest a number of areas where the Department can undertake 

technical assistance efforts, both directly and through its technical assistance arm, the National 

Technical Assistance Center for the Education of Neglected or Delinquent Children and Youth.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

59

Special programs for migrant students 

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part A, Subpart 5, Section 418A)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2025 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

Period of fund availability: 

2024 Annualized CR 2025 Request Change

$52,123 $52,123 0 Programs for Migrant Students

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 

farm work. 

Projects funded under the High School Equivalency Program (HEP) recruit migratory

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 first-year undergraduate migratory 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 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 $40.0 million, 45 percent of the remaining funds must be used for HEP and 

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015. Reauthorization for FY 2025 is expected through 

appropriations action.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

60

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: 

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) 

2020 $45,623

2021 46,123

2022 48,123

2023 52,123

2024 Annualized CR 52,123

FY 2025 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2025, the Administration requests $52.1 million for Special Programs for Migrant 

Students, level with a fiscal year 2024 annualized CR based on the fiscal year 2023 

appropriation. The request would continue support for programs that have demonstrated 

success in helping migratory youth, who are particularly at risk for low educational, employment, 

and earnings outcomes, in obtaining a high school equivalency certificate or helping first-year 

undergraduate migrant students successfully complete their first year of postsecondary 

education. 

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. 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, approximately 96 percent of CAMP participants who completed their first academic 

year in a postsecondary program continued their postsecondary education. In contrast, NCES 

data show that the retention rate of first-time, full-time degree/certificate-seeking 

undergraduates at 4-year institutions was 82 percent from 2019 to 2020, and 61 percent at 

2-year institutions during the same period.1

Data from a 2021 U.S. Department of Labor research report (Findings from the National 

Agricultural Workers Survey 2017-18: A Demographic and Employment Profile of United States 

Farmworkers)2 show that a significant proportion of farmworkers tend to be young, undereducated, unlikely to be proficient in English, and from low-income backgrounds. In 2019-2020, 

1 National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Undergraduate Retention and Graduation Rates. Condition of 

Education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved December 7, 2023, from 

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/ctr. 2 https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/ETAOP2022-16_NAWS_Research_Report_16_508c.pdf
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

61

individuals aged 14-19 constituted five percent of farmworkers, and one-third of farmworkers 

overall were younger than 35; average educational attainment was 9th grade; only 32 percent of 

respondents said they could speak English well; and 20 percent of farmworkers had family 

incomes below the poverty level. 

HEP and CAMP provide participants with assistance that can enable them to improve their 

earnings potential dramatically. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics “Occupational 

Outlook Handbook,”1 the median annual wage for agricultural workers in 2022 was $33,290, 

and these types of workers are often paid based on how much they do instead of how many 

hours they work. By comparison, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, in 

2021 the median earnings for full-time, year-round workers aged 25-34 were $39,700 for a 

person with a high school diploma or equivalent; $45,000 for a person with an associate’s 

degree; and $61,600 for a person with a bachelor’s degree.2 Furthermore, the “Occupational 

Outlook Handbook” indicates that periods of unemployment between jobs can cause stress for 

migrant and seasonal farmworkers, and agricultural work can be dangerous due to risk of 

exposure to pesticides or working with farm machinery that can cause serious injuries. 

Agricultural workers frequently leave the occupation due to the intense physical nature of the 

work, but because of the barriers to attain a quality education, they are likely to need support to 

pursue educational opportunities that would allow them and their families to obtain other jobs. 

The Administration is also requesting appropriations language that would allow the Department 

to override the distribution of funds between the HEP and CAMP programs required by the 

statute. This change would allow the Department to better leverage funds across multiple 

programs and provide more flexibility to make grant awards to the strongest applications. 

1 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Agricultural Workers, at 

https://www.bls.gov/ooh/farming-fishing-and-forestry/agricultural-workers.htm (visited December 4, 2023). 2 National Center for Education Statistics. (2023). Annual Earnings by Educational Attainment. Condition of 

Education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved December 7, 2023, from 

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cba.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

62

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures1 2023 2024 2025

Outreach, technical assistance, and 

professional development $260 $261 $261

HEP: — — —

HEP Number of students served 3,924 4,215 4,069

HEP Funding for new awards $1,715 $9,367 $5,302

HEP Number of new awards 4 20 12

HEP Peer review of new award applications 0 $58 $60

HEP Average new award $429 $468 $442

HEP Funding for continuation awards $22,969 $16,376 $20,439

HEP Number of continuation awards 50 38 44

HEP Average continuation award $459 $431 $465

HEP Average Federal contribution per student 

(whole dollars) $6,290 $6,121 $6,341

CAMP: — — —

CAMP Number of students served 2,160 2,124 2,016

CAMP Funding for new awards $1,846 $4,783 $5,876

CAMP Number of new awards 4 11 13

CAMP Peer review of new award applications 0 $58 $60

CAMP Average new award $462 $435 $452

CAMP Funding for continuation awards $25,072 $20,959 $19,864

CAMP Number of continuation awards 56 48 43

CAMP Average continuation award $448 $437 $462

CAMP Average Federal contribution per student 

(whole dollars) $12,462 $12,147 $12,798

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

program 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 Federal resources provided for the program as well as the 

resources and efforts invested by those served by the program. 

1 Totals include funding for higher education evaluation.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

63

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

2020 69.0% 62.0%

2021 69.0 65.2

2022 69.0 68.3

2023 69.0 —

2024 69.0 —

2025 69.0 —

Additional information: The source of data is grantee performance reports. Targets have 

remained the same over the past several years because changes to State academic standards 

for elementary and secondary education have led to more challenging high school equivalency 

assessments that have resulted in fluctuations in student performance. Grantees indicated that 

challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic continued during the 2021-22 reporting period,

including adjustments in instructional mode such as limited or no in-person instruction; recruiting 

and retaining staff; and student outreach, recruitment, and engagement. Data collected for fiscal 

year 2023 will be available in late 2024.

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, employment, or the military.

Year Target Actual

2020 80.0% 75.1%

2021 80.0 84.5

2022 80.0 83.5

2023 80.0 —

2024 80.0 —

2025 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. 

Grantee performance for 2020 was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, which resulted in the 

closure of many testing centers that administer high school equivalency tests. In addition, 

grantees had to develop strategies to provide services remotely and online in the middle of their 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

64

project periods. Grantees indicated that disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic 

disruptions continued during 2021, including limited opportunities for participants to take high 

school equivalency tests because of lack of open test sites and prolonged wait times. Data 

collected for fiscal year 2023 will be available in late 2024.

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

2020 86.0% 85.8%

2021 86.0 70.8

2022 86.0 73.1

2023 86.0 —

2024 86.0 —

2025 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 

started. Thus, the measure reflects the percentage of participants completing the first year of 

their postsecondary program between the second and fifth years of the project. Grantees 

indicated that challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic continued during the 2021-22 

reporting period, such as lost instructional time in high school that impacted performance in 

higher education; student mental health challenges; changes to course delivery, including 

limited or no in-person instruction; and challenges with recruitment of both staff and students. 

The lack of staff also led to reduced advisory and other support services. Data collected for 

fiscal year 2023 will be available in late 2024. 

Objective: A majority of CAMP students who successfully complete their first academic year of 

college will continue in postsecondary education.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

65

Measure: The percentage of CAMP participants who, after completing the first academic year 

of college, continue their postsecondary education.

Year Target Actual

2020 92.0% 96.1%

2021 92.0 96.4

2022 92.0 95.6

2023 92.0 —

2024 92.0 —

2025 92.0 —

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. Data 

collected for fiscal year 2023 will be available in late 2024.

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 completing their first year of 

postsecondary education and then continuing their postsecondary education.

HEP Efficiency Measures

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 collegeassociated costs and then decreased by an expected improvement in efficiency annually of 1 

percent. Actual costs for HEP programs have fluctuated since 2015, in part, due to substantial 

increases in costs for high school equivalency testing, along with decreases in the number of 

HEP participants receiving a high school equivalency credential resulting from an increase in 

rigor in such testing. Grantee performance continued to be affected by the lingering effects of 

the pandemic during the 2021-2022 reporting period. The Department plans to re-set targets in 

2024, taking into account updated costs and inflation rates. Data collected for fiscal year 2023 

will be available in late 2024 and will be included in the fiscal year 2026 Congressional 

Justification. 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

66

Measure: Cost per participant earning a high school equivalency credential, commuter 

programs.

Year

Target Cost Per Commuter 

Participant

Actual Cost Per Commuter 

Participant

2020 $10,232 $12,458

2021 10,334 12,104

2022 10,438 11,437

2023 10,541 —

2024 10,647 —

2025 10,753 —

Measure: Cost per participant earning a high school equivalency credential, residential 

programs.

Year

Target Cost Per Residential 

Participant

Actual Cost Per Residential 

Participant

2020 $19,924 $19,168

2021 20,123 10,733

2022 20,324 13,733

2023 20,527 —

2024 20,732 —

2025 20,939 —

Measure: Cost per participant earning a high school equivalency credential, programs with both 

commuting and resident students.

Year

Target Cost Per Participant

in Combined Programs

Actual Cost Per Participant

in Combined Programs

2020 $16,127 $28,120

2021 16,289 29,688

2022 16,451 13,374

2023 16,616 —

2024 16,782 —

2025 16,950 —

CAMP Efficiency Measures

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 collegeassociated costs and then decreased by an expected improvement in efficiency annually of 1 

percent. Grantee performance continued to be affected by the lingering effects of the pandemic 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

67

during the 2021-2022 reporting period. The Department plans to re-set targets in 2024, taking 

into account updated costs and inflation rates. Data collected for fiscal year 2023 will be 

available in late 2024.

Measure: Cost per participant completing the first year of postsecondary education and 

continuing postsecondary education, commuter programs.

Year

Target Cost Per Commuter 

Participant

Actual Cost Per Commuter 

Participant

2020 $15,688 $11,393

2021 15,939 11,044

2022 16,194 16,105

2023 16,453 —

2024 16,716 —

2025 16,984 —

Measure: Cost per participant completing the first year of postsecondary education and 

continuing postsecondary education, residential programs.

Year

Target Cost Per Residential 

Participant

Actual Cost Per Residential 

Participant

2020 $25,141 $13,804

2021 25,543 20,837

2022 25,952 16,548

2023 26,367 —

2024 26,789 —

2025 27,218 —

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

for Combined Programs

Actual Cost Per Participant

for Combined Programs

2020 $19,118 $15,850

2021 19,424 17,550

2022 19,735 17,215

2023 20,051 —

2024 20,372 —

2025 20,698 —
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

68

Account Summary Table

Select here for the online version.