Department of Education

EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Fiscal Year 2024 Budget Request

CONTENTS

Page

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

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

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers.................................................................................... 5

Summary of Changes ................................................................................................................... 6

Authorizing Legislation.................................................................................................................. 7

Appropriations History................................................................................................................... 8

Significant Items in FY 2023 Appropriations Reports ................................................................. 10

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

Grants to local educational agencies......................................................................................13

Comprehensive literacy development grants .........................................................................26

Innovative approaches to literacy...........................................................................................32

Migrant education...................................................................................................................37

Neglected, delinquent, and at-risk children and youth............................................................44

Special programs for migrant students...................................................................................52

Account Summary Table.............................................................................................................62

State Tables*

*State tables reflecting actual fiscal year 2022 allocations and fiscal years 2023 and 2024 

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"), [$19,087,790,000]$21,254,551,000, of 

which [$8,159,490,000]$10,317,251,000 shall become available on July 1, [2023]2024, and 

shall remain available through September 30, [2024]2025, and of which $10,841,177,000 shall 

become available on October 1, [2023]2024, and shall remain available through September 30, 

[2024]2025, for academic year [2023–2024]2024–2025:

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, [2022]2023, to obtain annually updated local educational agencylevel 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 [$5,282,550,000]$6,357,550,000 shall be for targeted grants under section 1125 of 

the ESEA:5 Provided further, That [$5,282,550,000]$6,357,550,000 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 

$100,000,000 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 $224,000,000 

shall be for carrying out subpart 2 of part B of title II:8 Provided further, That [$52,123,000]

$66,123,000 shall be for carrying out section 418A of the HEA:9 
2 

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.

10 (Department of 

Education Appropriations Act, 2023.)

NOTE

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

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

3 

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1 of which [$8,159,490,000]$10,317,251,000 

shall become available on July 1, 

[2023]2024, and shall remain available 

through September 30, [2024]2025, and of 

which $10,841,177,000 shall become 

available on October 1, [2023]2024, and shall 

remain available through September 30, 

[2024]2025, for academic year [2023–

2024]2024–2025:... 

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, [2022]2023, to 

obtain annually updated local educational 

agency-level census poverty data from the 

Bureau of the Census:... 

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

funds to support continued work by the 

Census Bureau to update LEA-level poverty 

data. 

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

shall be for concentration grants under 

section 1124A of the ESEA:...

This language establishes a specific funding 

level for Title I Concentration Grants. 

5 ...Provided further, That [$5,282,550,000]

$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 [$5,282,550,000]

$6,357,550,000 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. 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

4 

Language Provision Explanation

7 ...Provided further, That of the amounts 

available under the preceding two provisos 

the Secretary may reserve up to 

$100,000,000 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 $100 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 

commissions and voluntary local educational 

agency equity reviews.

8 ...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.

9...Provided further, That [$52,123,000] 

$66,123,000 shall be for carrying out section 

418A of the HEA.

This language provides funding for Special 

Programs for Migrant Students.

10...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

5

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2022 2023 2024

Discretionary:

Discretionary Appropriation $18,229,790 $19,087,790 $21,254,551

Total, discretionary appropriation 18,229,790 19,087,790 21,254,551

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 18,229,790 19,087,790 21,254,551
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

6 

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2023 Discretionary $19,087,790

2024 Discretionary 21,254,551

Net change +2,166,761

Increases: 2023 base

Change

from base

Program:

Increase for Grants to LEAs consistent with 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 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 +$2,150,000

Increase funding for Neglected and Delinquent to to 

address resource inequities across our education system, 

particularly for underserved students such as students in 

correctional institutions or other institutional settings. 49,239 +2,761

Increase funding for Special Programs for Migrant 

Students to support of the President’s goal to advance 

equity in education and significantly expand programs that 

have demonstrated success in helping migrant youth. 52,123 +14,000 

Net change +2,166,761
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

7

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity 2023

Authorized footnote

2023

Appropriation

2024

Authorized footnote 2024 Request

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

LEA grants formulas: 0 To be determined1

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

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

LEA grants formulas Targeted grants (Section 1125) 5,282,550 6,357,550

LEA grants formulas Education finance incentive grants (Section 1125A) 5,282,550 6,357,550

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

Section 2222) 194,000

To be determined1

194,000

Innovative approaches to literacy (ESEA-II-B-2, Section 2226) 30,000 To be determined1

30,000

State agency programs: To be determined

Migrant (ESEA I-C) 0 375,626 To be determined1 375,626

Neglected and delinquent (ESEA I-D) 0 49,239 To be determined1 52,000

Special Programs for Migrant Students (HEA IV-A-5) 0 52,123 To be determined2 66,123

Total definite authorization 0 To be determined

Total appropriation $19,087,790 $21,254,551

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2021. Reauthorization for FY 2024 is expected through appropriations action.

2 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015. Reauthorization for FY 2024 is expected through appropriations action.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

8

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance Footnote

Senate 

Allowance Footnote AppropriationFootnote

20151 $15,377,965 N/A $15,566,226 $15,536,107

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

20162 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)

20173 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)

20184 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)

20195 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)

20206 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)

1 The House allowance is shown as N/A because there was no Subcommittee action. The level for the Senate 

allowance reflects Senate Subcommittee action only.

2 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. 3 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. 4 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). 5 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). 6 The Senate allowance reflects the Chairman’s mark; the Appropriation reflects the Further Consolidated 

Appropriation Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94).
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Appropriations History—continued

9

Year

Budget Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance Footnote

Senate 

Allowance Footnote AppropriationFootnote

20211 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)

20222 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)

20233 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)

2024 21,254,551

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

1 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). 2 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). 3 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).
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

10

Significant Items in FY 2023 Appropriations Reports

Grants to LEAs

House: Transportation and School Improvement.—The Committee recognized a 

longstanding barrier to the implementation of strategies to increase student 

diversity as a means of school improvement in the Department of Education 

Appropriations Act, 2019 when it removed two decades-old prohibitions on the 

use of Federal funds for transportation costs to carry out school desegregation 

efforts. Subsequently, in the Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2021, 

the Committee removed the last of these long-standing prohibitions in the 

Federal code in the General Education Provisions Act. With the recent removal of 

these prohibitions, the Committee remains concerned many States and districts 

may be unaware of their ability to use ESEA funding to support voluntary school 

integration efforts. In response, the Committee included a directive in House 

Report 117–96 requiring the Department to provide technical assistance to 

school districts regarding the use of school improvement funds under Title I, Part 

A for transportation to support voluntary school integration efforts. The 

Committee looks forward to receiving an update on the Department’s progress in 

carrying out this work by September 30, 2022.

Response: The Department is working on clarifying implementation of school improvement 

requirements and expects to incorporate information therein regarding how 

school districts may use Title I, Part A funds for transportation as part of school 

diversity and improvement efforts.

Joint Explanatory 

Statement: The Department shall brief the Committees not later than 60 days after 

enactment of this Act on the Department's actions and plans for addressing the 

challenges identified in GAO's report on school improvement (GAO-21-199) and 

assisting state educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies 

(LEAs) with implementing all of the school improvement requirements of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), including meaningful resource 

allocation reviews. 

Response: The Department provided this briefing on February 23, 2023.

Joint Explanatory 

Statement: The Department shall also increase transparency on the amount reserved by 

each State for the school improvement set aside, method of distribution to 

eligible LEAs, uses of such funds and the Department's actions and plans for 

supporting SEA and LEA implementation of ESEA school improvement 

requirements, including resource equity requirements, in the fiscal year 2024 and 

future Congressional Justifications.

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

implement these requirements and how much funding they reserve to support 

these efforts.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Appropriations History—continued

11

Innovative Approaches to Literacy

House: Underserved Urban School Districts.—The Committee directs the Department in 

any new fiscal year 2023 competition to continue prioritizing underserved 

communities in urban school districts in which students from low-income families 

make up at least 50 percent of enrollment.

Response: The Department is including two competitive preference priorities in the fiscal 

year 2023 competition prioritizing communities in urban school districts and 

districts that serve students from low-income families that make up at least 50 

percent of enrollment. 

Neglected and Delinquent

House: Support for At-risk Youth.—The Committee is concerned with findings from the 

Department’s report to Congress on Neglected and Delinquent Programs, which 

found that State-level data on reentry activities required under ESEA is 

insufficient to provide an accurate sense of the success of such efforts nationally. 

Given the disproportionate impact of the COVID–19 pandemic on the youth 

justice system, the Committee believes it is essential that the Department 

monitor and ensure compliance with re-entry activities required under ESEA. In 

the fiscal year 2024 Congressional Budget Justification, the Committee requests 

information regarding how the Department will support each State in meeting the 

data reporting and re-entry requirements for youth included in ESEA.

Response: 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 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 $21.3 billion in fiscal year 2024 for the programs in this account.

The $20.5 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 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 $30 million request for Innovative Approaches to Literacy would fund competitive grants to 

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

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

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

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

adolescents in low-income communities.

The request would 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 $52 million request for the State agency Neglected and Delinquent program provides a 

$2.8 million increase for programs that serve students who are educated in institutional settings 

or correctional facilities and will likely transition to local school systems. 

Finally, the request includes $66.1 million for Special Programs for Migrant Students, an 

increase of $14 million, in support of the President’s goal to advance equity in education through

a significant expansion of programs that have demonstrated success in helping migratory youth 

who are particularly at risk for low educational, employment, and earnings outcomes. 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

13

Grants to local educational agencies

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2024 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget authority:

Period of fund availability: 

2023 Appropriation 2024 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 6,357,550 +$1,075,000

Education finance incentive grants 5,282,550 6,357,550 +1,075,000

Total 18,386,802 20,536,802 +2,150,000

Annual appropriation 7,545,625 9,695,625 +2,150,000

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

Grants to local educational 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 

25 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 2024 is expected through appropriations 

action.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

14

children under 6 years of age 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 1 grade in each of 3 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 

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

students in the State.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

15

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 

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 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

16

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 

allocations. For example, the fiscal year 2021 allocations were based on LEA poverty estimates 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

17

for 2019. The Department transfers approximately $5 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—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 million for the Republic of Palau. In addition, States are 

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

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

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

a threshold that has been exceeded each year beginning with fiscal year 2008. 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, including charter 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.

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

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

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

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

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

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years, in thousands of dollars, were:

Fiscal Year

Basic

Grants 

Concentration 

Grants

Targeted

Grants

Education 

Finance

Incentive 

Grants Total

2019 $6,459,401 $1,362,301 $4,019,050 $4,019,050 $15,859,802

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
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

18

FY 2024 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2024, the Administration requests $20.5 billion for Title I Grants to LEAs, 

$2.2 billion more than the fiscal year 2023 appropriation. The request 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. 

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 funds 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, 

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

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

programs; provide additional summer learning and afterschool programs; hire additional 

instructional and mental health staff; increase the diversity of staff; train educators in strategies 

that accelerate learning and support the social and emotional development and needs of 

students; and trauma-informed approaches that support students that have experienced 

significant trauma over the past several school years. 

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. 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 financial “cliff” otherwise created by 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.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

19

Promoting Equity in Education Funding Systems

To create more equitable school finance systems, the request for fiscal year 2024 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 

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 The impact of education funding is called out in a report from the Education 

Law Center at Rutgers University, The Real Shame of the Nation: The Causes and 

Consequences of Interstate Inequity in Public School Investments, which examined the ability of 

States to achieve a common student achievement outcome and assessed the costs associated 

with such outcomes. The report found that 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, while also noting that in many States funding is inadequate for all 

but the districts with the lowest rates of poverty. These findings led the report’s authors to 

conclude that “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.”3

A second study from the Education Law Center at Rutgers University, Is School Funding Fair? A 

National Report Card, documents some of the key areas for consideration in reviewing State 

and local school finance systems, including directing funding based on student need as 

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. 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

20

measured primarily by family income; providing progressively more funds to districts with 

greater concentrations of poverty; and ensuring a sufficient overall level of education funding. 

The study highlights significant disparities among States in the area of overall funding, reports a 

decline in the number of States with progressive funding systems from 22 in 2008 to just 11 in 

2015 (meaning that the majority of State systems do not provide additional support to districts 

with high rates of poverty), and describes wide gaps in State fiscal effort when it comes to 

funding elementary and secondary education.1

The Department’s proposal would include 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 $100 million to support comprehensive reviews of school finance 

systems. These funds would pay the costs of (1) voluntary State school funding equity 

commissions and (2) voluntary local educational agency equity reviews, both of which 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. LEA 

grantees 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. 

Supporting Program Implementation and Compliance

The Department plans to continue to monitor and expand support for State and LEA 

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

Department carried out a pilot monitoring project that targeted implementation of resource 

equity provisions in Title I, and is considering additional technical assistance efforts, based on 

the outcomes from that effort. The Department plans to share the results of those monitoring 

reviews with grantees and the field as well. 

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. ESEA 

provisions for school support and improvement activities require States to periodically review 

resource allocation to support school improvement for each LEA that is serving a significant 

number of schools identified for comprehensive support and improvement or implementing 

targeted support and improvement plans. At the local level, LEAs must identify resource 

inequities in their support and improvement plans for schools identified for comprehensive 

support and improvement or implementing targeted support and improvement plans. 

1 https://edlawcenter.org/assets/files/pdfs/publications/Is_School_Funding_Fair_7th_Editi.pdf. 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

21

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

to ensuring educational stability for students in foster care. The Department plans to update the 

non-regulatory guidance published in 2016 and is exploring other efforts to support foster 

students. The Department recently published exemplar models of data sharing between SEAs 

and child welfare agencies.1

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

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

Output Measures 2022 2023 2024

Allocations by LEA Poverty Rate:

0-15%

0-15% # of LEAs 7,096 6,295 6,295

0-15% Dollars $4,784,656 $4,063,356 $4,520,705

0-15% % of Total $ 27.75 22.46 22.47

0-15% # of Formula Eligible Children 2,636,900 2,424,339 2,424,339

0-15% 0-15% $ Per Formula Child $1,815 $1,676 $1,865

15-25%

15-25% # of LEAs 4,033 4,426 4,426

15-25% Dollars $7,272,274 $7,627,186 $8,478,719

15-25% % of Total $ 42.17 42.17 42.15

15-25% # of Formula Eligible Children 3,389,746 3,833,943 3,833,943

15-25% 15-25% $ Per Formula Child $2,145 $1,989 $2,211

>25% 

>25% # of LEAs 1,543 2,015 2,015

>25% Dollars $5,186,048 $6,397,615 $7,116,330

>25% % of Total $ 30.08 35.37 35.38

>25% # of Formula Eligible Children 2,249,742 2,846,067 2,846,067

>25% >25% $ Per Formula Child $2,305 $2,248 $2,500

LEA Allocation Subtotal $17,242,980 $18,088,157 $20,115,754

BIA/Outlying Areas $192,850 $202,200 $224,750

N&D Program (Part D, Subpart 2) $95,974 $91,445 $91,298

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

Funding for State and local equity reviews 0 0 100,000

Grants to LEAs Total $17,536,802 $18,386,802 $20,536,802

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

22

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.

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

2019 56.0% 65.3%

2020 60.0 Not available

2021 64.0 57.6

2022 68.0

2023 68.0

2024 72.0

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 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

23

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 2023.

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

2019 54.0% 60.4%

2020 58.0 Not available

2021 62.0 68.6

2022 66.0

2023 66.0

2024 70.0

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 2023.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

24

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

2019 52.7% 55.8%

2020 56.7 Not available

2021 60.7 63.0

2022 64.7

2023 64.7

2024 68.7

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 in late 2023.

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

2019 58.0% 58.8%

2020 62.0 60.0

2021 66.0 35.4

2022 70.0

2023 74.0

2024 78.0
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

25

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 2023.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

26

Comprehensive literacy development grants

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2024 Authorization: To be determined 1

Budget Authority:

2023 Appropriation 2024 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 Comprehensive Literacy State Development Grants, 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 low-income 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 

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

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2021. Reauthorization for FY 2024 is expected through appropriations 

action. 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Comprehensive literacy development grants

27

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 as follows:

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2019 $190,000

2020 192,000

2021 192,000

2022 192,000

2023 194,000

FY 2024 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2024, the Administration requests $194 million for Comprehensive Literacy State 

Development Grants, level with the fiscal year 2023 appropriation. The request would support 

new and continuation awards for approximately 12 SEAs implementing plans for comprehensive

literacy instruction, particularly for underserved students.

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 

2019 National Assessment of Educational Progress, just 35 percent of 4th-grade students, 

34 percent of 8th-grade students, and 37 percent of 12th-grade students scored at or above the 

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

between students from low-income backgrounds and their peers: 51 percent of 4th-grade 

students from higher-income families scored at or above proficient in 2019, compared to 

21 percent of 4th-grade students from low-income backgrounds; and 46 percent of 8th-grade 

students from higher-income backgrounds scored at or above proficient, compared to 

20 percent of 8th-grade students from low-income backgrounds. We also know that the COVID19 pandemic has impacted educational opportunities and outcomes for many students, 

including reading proficiency. 

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. Further, significant differences in reading skills, including pre-literacy skills, have 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Comprehensive literacy development grants

28

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. 

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.

The Comprehensive Literacy State Development Grants program has been successful in 

improving literacy for participating students. The percentage of participating high school 

students who met or exceeded proficiency on State English language arts assessments

increased from 41 percent in 2019 to 61 percent in 2022. Similarly, the percentage of 

participating students who met or exceeded proficiency on State English language arts 

assessments increased from 44 percent in 2019 to 59 percent in 2022 for 5th-grade students 

and from 44 percent in 2019 to 60 percent in 2022 for 8th-grade students.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2022 2023 2024

Funding for new awards 0 $140,057 $48,903

Number of new awards 0 9 3

Funding for continuation awards $187, 043 $48,903 $140,057

Number of continuation awards 24 16 9

Peer review of new award applications 0 $100 $100

Amount for Bureau of Indian Education $960 $970 $970

Amount for Outlying Areas $960 $970 $970

National activities (including evaluation) $3,037 $3,000 $3,000

NOTES: 

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

fiscal year. Accordingly, the funding from the fiscal year 2022 appropriation shown above will generally be obligated 

in fiscal year 2023. 

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 2022, it may do so in fiscal year 2023 or 2024. 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Comprehensive literacy development grants

29

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.

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

oral language skills.

Year Target Actual

2019 52% 66%

2020 52 75

2021 75 54

2022 59 58

2023 64

2024 62

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 2023 will be available 

in 2024.

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

on State English language arts assessments.

Year Target Actual

2019 43% 44%

2020 43 Not applicable

2021 43 34

2022 39 59

2023 44

2024 63
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Comprehensive literacy development grants

30

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 2023 will be available in 2024.

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

on State English language arts assessments.

Year Target Actual

2019 42% 44%

2020 42 Not applicable

2021 43 38

2022 43 60

2023 64

2024 64

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 2023 will be available in 2024.

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

on State English language arts assessments.

Year Target Actual

2019 39% 41%

2020 39 Not applicable

2021 42 40

2022 45 61

2023 65

2024 67
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Comprehensive literacy development grants

31

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 2023 will be available in 2024.

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

the requirements of strong or moderate evidence.

Year Target Actual

2022 74% 62%

2023 65

2024 68

Additional information: Data reflect State-level determinations of subgrantee adherence to 

evidence standards defined in section 8101 of the ESEA.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

32

Innovative approaches to literacy

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2024 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2023 Appropriation 2024 Request Change

$30,000 $30,000 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Innovative Approaches to Literacy 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 highquality books to children and adolescents to increase students’ reading motivation, 

performance, and frequency.

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

2019 $27,000

2020 27,000

2021 28,000

2022 29,000

2023 30,000

FY 2024 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2024, the Administration requests $30 million for Innovative Approaches to 

Literacy, level with the fiscal year 2023 appropriation. Funds would be used to continue awards 

initially made in fiscal years 2021 and 2023.

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 

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2021. Reauthorization for FY 2024 is expected through appropriations 

action.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Innovative approaches to literacy

33

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

access to developmentally appropriate reading material in their homes. 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. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2022 2023 2024

Funding for new awards 0 $9,078 0 

Number of new awards 0 16 0

Peer review 0 $300 0

Funding for continuation awards $29,000 $20,622 $30,000

Number of continuation awards 40 40 56

 

NOTE: 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 2022, it 

may do so in fiscal years 2023 and 2024. 

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

program goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets and data. 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. 

The Department established the following performance measures for grantees under 

this program. Note that grantees were required to report only on measures applicable to the 

student populations served through the project, and, therefore, not all grantees reported on 

each performance measure. 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Innovative approaches to literacy

34

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

significant gains in oral language skills.

Year Target Actual

2019 70 30

2020 50 67

2021 50 57

2022 50 28

2023 50 N/A

2024 50

Additional information: Data in this table represents the FY 2018 and FY 2019 cohorts. The 

FY 2022 data for this measure represents the FY 2019 cohort of IAL grantees. All FY 2019 

grantees reported data for this measure. Note that the IAL program discontinued use of this 

measure in the FY 21 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.

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 under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA.

Year Target Actual

2019 70 20

2020 30 31

2021 30 41

2022 30 38

2023 30

2024 30

Additional information: This measure was introduced with the 2016 cohort of IAL grantees; 

the first year for which grantees reported performance data was fiscal year 2018. Data reported 

for fiscal year 2019 included data from some 2018 grantees reporting for the first time; since 

then, the Department has worked with each grantee to improve the quality and timely 

submission of data. Many 2018 grantees structured their projects to focus primarily on 

increasing access to books and materials, resulting in a shift in focus away from academic 

achievement in the first year. 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 

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

4th grade student growth data in years 2-5. 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Innovative approaches to literacy

35

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 under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA.

Year Target Actual

2019 70 29

2020 30 29

2021 32 40

2022 32 49

2023 32

2024 35

Additional information: This measure was introduced with the 2016 cohort of IAL grantees; 

the first year for which grantees reported performance data was fiscal year 2018. Data reported 

for fiscal year 2019 includes data from some 2018 grantees reporting for the first time; since 

then, the Department has worked with each grantee to improve the quality and timely 

submission of data. Many 2018 grantees structured their projects to focus primarily on 

increasing access to books and materials, resulting in a shift in focus away from academic 

achievement in the first year. 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 

FY 21 cohort, some grantees used year one as a baseline year and will report 8th grade student 

growth data in years 2-5. 

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

increase from the previous year.

Year Target Actual

2019 100 98%

2020 99 100

2021 99 99

2022 99 99

2023 99

2024 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 FY 21 cohort, some grantees used year 

one as a baseline year and will report their increase in book-to-student ratios in years 2-5.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Innovative approaches to literacy

36

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

language-appropriate book of their own.

Year Target Actual

2019 100 98

2020 98 100

2021 99 99

2022 99 89

2023 99

2024 99

Additional Information: For 2022, 38 of 40 (95 percent) grantees reported data for this measure. 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

37

Migrant education

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2024 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

Period of fund availability: 

2023 Appropriation 2024 Request Change

$375,626 $375,626 0 Migrant

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 million from the annual MEP appropriation for contracts 

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

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2021. Reauthorization in FY 2024 is expected through appropriations 

action.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant education

38

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

consult with States receiving allocations of $1 million or less about whether they can increase 

the cost-effectiveness of their programs by entering into inter-state consortium arrangements; in 

fiscal year 2021, 14 States received allocations under $1 million, but none had entered into 

consortia with other States under this provision. The Department may reserve up to $3 million a 

year from coordination funds for incentive grants of not more than $250,000 to such consortia. 

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) 

2019 $374,751

2020 374,751

2021 375,626

2022 375,626

2023 375,626

FY 2024 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2024, the Administration requests $375.6 million for the Title I Migrant Education 

Program (MEP), level with the fiscal year 2023 appropriation. The request would support the 

President’s goal to advance equity in education through activities to identify highly mobile 

migratory children, provide them comprehensive services that address their specific needs, and 

promote coordination of the Federal resources available to serve this population.

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

39

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 2020-21 school year, 270,959 children, ages 

birth through 21 years old, were identified as eligible for services; about 33 percent of these 

children had moved within the past 12 months and nearly 9 percent were identified as students 

with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. In addition, almost

43 percent of eligible children and youth, aged 3 through 21 years old, were English learners 

and just over 29 percent were classified as having priority for services under the program 

(meaning they had moved within the past 12 months and were at risk for not meeting State 

standards or left school without a diploma.)

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

number of migratory “emancipated youth" travel without a parent or guardian to obtain migratory 

work in the fields and in agricultural processing. In 2020-21, approximately 8 percent of children, 

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

not attend school. 

During school year 2020-21, States and local entities provided services under this program to 

195,665 identified migratory children and youth, ages birth through 21 years old. Services 

included supplemental instruction in reading, math, and other academic areas, as well as high 

school credit accrual. Program funds were also used to provide educationally related services 

such as counseling, health and nutrition services, advocacy, and referrals for migratory students 

with disabilities, and (especially in the summer) transportation. Of the 9,891 eligible children 

aged birth through 2 years old, 2,803 received services; of the 27,975 aged 3 through 5 years 

old (not kindergarten), 17,446 received services; of the 210,271 in kindergarten through grade 

12, 160,679 received services; and of the 22,791 identified as out-of-school youth, 14,714 

received services. The Department expects to support a similar level of services using fiscal 

year 2024 funds. 

The Department would continue to reserve approximately $10 million in fiscal year 2024 for 

coordination activities to serve migratory children and youth, including $3 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). 

In addition, the request includes a $10 million increase under the Special Education Educational 

Technology, Media, and Materials program to support the development of innovative technology 

tools to make Individual Education Programs for children with disabilities, including migrant 

children with disabilities, more portable to reduce service gaps. The request further includes a 

$16 million increase to the Special Education Parent Training and Information Centers program, 

$4 million of which would be used to support the creation of a national technical assistance 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant education

40

center to support parents and families of highly mobile children with disabilities to ensure that 

their learning needs are met, no matter where they receive services. The remaining additional 

funding would support the creation of new Parent Training Centers, which would support 

parents and families in particular regions across the country, including parents and families of 

migratory children and youth.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2022 2023 2024

Number of eligible children aged 

birth through 21

270,959 270,959 270,959

SEA program:

SEA program Amount for State grants $365,626 $365,626 $365,626

SEA program Range of State awards 0-$113,366 0-$112,301 0-$112,301

Coordination activities:

coordination activities Consortium incentive grants $3,000 $3,000 $3,000

coordination activities Migrant student information 

exchange and related 

coordination activities $7,000 $7,000 $7,000

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 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

41

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

2019 33.4% 26.9%

2020 33.4 Not available

2021 30.0 21.4

2022 31.0

2023 33.0

2024 33.0

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

2019 32.5% 25.7%

2020 32.5 Not available

2021 30.0 17.2

2022 31.0

2023 33.0

2024 33.0

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 2019-20 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. Data for 2022 will be available in late summer of 2023.

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 has not reported or established targets for these 

measures yet. Department staff have been working with States on data quality for these 

measures and will report data and targets once the Department has collected enough data to 

set a baseline and determine targets.

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 

information, student assessment data, and credit accrual information for secondary school 

students.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant education

42

Measure: The number of States collecting all the types of data elements collected in MSIX.

Year Target Actual

2019 46 46

2020 46 46

2021 46 46

2022 46

2023 46

2024 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. The Department is also exploring development of a new efficiency measure for the 

program.

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 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 

1 https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html#migrant
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant education

43

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 future technical 

assistance efforts.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

44

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 2024 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2023 Appropriation 2024 Request Change 

$49,239 $52,000 +$2,761 Neglected, delinquent 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 Stateoperated 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 applied through September 30, 2021. Reauthorization for FY 2024 is expected through 

appropriations action.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected, delinquent, and at-risk children and youth

45

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) 

2019 $47,614

2020 47,614

2021 48,239

2022 48,239

2023 49,239

FY 2024 BUDGET 

For fiscal year 2024, the Administration requests $52 million for the Neglected, Delinquent and 

At-Risk program, $2.8 million more than 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

46

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 34 percent (18,801) of the youth served by the program in school 

year 2019-20 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. 

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.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected, delinquent, and at-risk children and youth

47

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2022 2023 2024

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) $850 $916 $966

Range of awards to States 0-$3,187 0-$3,327 0-$3,451

Average State award $904 $941 $994

Technical assistance $1,206 $1,231 $1,300

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 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.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected, delinquent, and at-risk children and youth

48

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

2019 20.8% 13.5%

2020 21.8 13.6

2021 22.8 14.4

2022 23.8

2023 23.8

2024 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

2019 63.6% 53.6%

2020 64.6 52.1

2021 65.6 61.7

2022 66.6

2023 66.6

2024 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 

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.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected, delinquent, and at-risk children and youth

49

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

2019 78.4% 62.8%

2020 79.4 58.8

2021 80.4 61.7

2022 81.4

2023 81.4

2024 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

2019 79.9% 63.1%

2020 80.9 59.3

2021 81.9 61.0

2022 82.9

2023 82.9

2024 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 longterm 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 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 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected, delinquent, and at-risk children and youth

50

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

2019 $4,211 $7,070

2020 4,170 8,127

2021 4,128 11,479

2022 4,087

2023 4,087

2024 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 

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.

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

51

• 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

52

Special programs for migrant students

(Higher Education Act of 1965, Title IV, Part A, Subpart 5, Section 418A)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2024 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2023 Appropriation 2024 Request Change 

$52,123 $66,123 +$14,000 Special 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 firstyear 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 million, 45 percent of the remaining funds must be used for HEP and 

45 percent for CAMP, and the remainder may be used for either program, based on the number, 

quality, and promise of applications received.

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015. Reauthorization for FY 2024 is expected through appropriations 

action.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

53

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) 

2019 $44,623

2020 45,623

2021 46,123

2022 48,123

2023 52,123

FY 2024 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2024, the Administration requests $66.1 million for Special Programs for Migrant 

Students, $14 million more than a fiscal year 2023 appropriation. The request would continue to 

support the planned expansion of 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 US 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 2019-20, 

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 

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 February 13, 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

54

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 2021 was $29,680, 

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 

2020 the median earnings for full-time, year-round workers aged 25-34 were $36,600 for a 

person with a high school diploma or equivalent; $44,100 for a person with an associate’s 

degree; and $59,600 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 requesting appropriations language that would allow the Department to 

override the distribution of funds between the HEP and CAMP programs 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.

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 February 13, 2023). 2 National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Annual Earnings by Educational Attainment. Condition of 

Education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved February 13, 2023, from 

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cba.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

55

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2022 2023 2024

Outreach, technical assistance, and 

professional development $194 $261 $331

HEP:

HEP Number of students served 3,796 4,503 5,609

HEP Funding for new awards $2,843 $3,136 $13,769

HEP Number of new awards 6 7 30

HEP Peer review of new award applications $49 0 $100

HEP Average new award $474 $448 $457

HEP Funding for continuation awards $20,824 $22,795 $19,027

HEP Number of continuation awards 44 50 41

HEP Average continuation award $473 $456 $464

HEP Average Federal contribution per student 

(whole dollars) $6,247 $5,759 $5,865

CAMP:

CAMP Number of students served 2,047 2,088 2,592

CAMP Funding for new awards $5,208 $931 $14,089

CAMP Number of new awards 11 2 31

CAMP Peer review of new award applications $47 0 $100

CAMP Average new award $473 $454 $475

CAMP Funding for continuation awards $18,720 $24,999 $18,707

CAMP Number of continuation awards 45 56 41

CAMP Average continuation award $416 $446 $456

CAMP Average Federal contribution per student 

(whole dollars) $11,712 $12,419 $12,691

E Pooled evaluation1 $241

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 

1 Funds transferred to HEA Pooled Evaluation Authority pursuant to Section 312 of the Consolidated Appropriations 

Act of 2022 (Public Law 117-103, March 15, 2022; 136 Stat. 49), which states the Secretary may reserve not more 

than 0.5 percent from any amount made available in this Act for an HEA program, except for any amounts made 

available for subpart 1 of part A of title IV of the HEA, to carry out rigorous and independent evaluations and to collect 

and analyze outcome data for any program authorized by the HEA. The Department may reserve funds in future 

years.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

56

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 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

2019 69.0% 66.6%

2020 69.0 62.0

2021 69.0 65.2

2022 69.0

2023 69.0

2024 69

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. 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 project periods. 

Grantees indicated that disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic 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 2022 will be 

available in late 2023.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

57

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, upgraded employment, or the military.

Year Target Actual

2019 80.0% 83.9%

2020 80.0 75.1

2021 80.0 84.5

2022 80.0

2023 80.0

2024 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 

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 2022 will be available in late 2023.

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

2019 86.0% 87.9%

2020 86.0 85.8

2021 86.0 70.8

2022 86.0

2023 86.0

2024 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 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

58

their postsecondary program between the second and fifth years of the project. Grantee 

performance for 2020 was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, which required grantees to 

develop strategies to provide services remotely and online in the middle of their project periods. 

Grantees indicated that disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic continued during 2021, 

such as staff shortages and professional development and training, and cancellation of events 

that are particularly important for first generation students like student orientations, campus 

tours, and parent seminars. The lack of staff meant reduced advisory and other support 

services. Data collected for fiscal year 2021 will be available in late 2022.

Objective: A majority of CAMP students who successfully complete their first academic year of 

college will continue in postsecondary education.

Measure: The percentage of CAMP participants who, after completing the first academic year 

of college, continue their postsecondary education.

Year Target Actual

2019 90.0 96.4

2020 92.0 96.1

2021 92.0 96.4

2022 92.0

2023 92.0

2024 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. Grantee 

performance for 2020 was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, which required grantees to 

develop strategies to provide services remotely and online in the middle of their project periods. 

Data collected for fiscal year 2022 will be available in late 2023.

Efficiency measures

The Department established a cost-per-participant outcome measure to assess program 

efficiency for HEP and CAMP. For HEP, the measure is the cost per participant earning a GED 

credential and, for CAMP, it is the cost per participant who completes his or her first year of 

postsecondary education and then continues that postsecondary education.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

59

HEP Efficiency Measures

Measure: Cost per participant earning a high school equivalency credential, commuter 

programs.

Year

Target Cost Per Commuter 

Participant

Actual Cost Per Commuter 

Participant

2019 $10,131 $8,594

2020 10,232 12,458

2021 10,334 12,104

2022 10,438

2023 10,541

2024 10,647

Measure: Cost per participant earning a high school equivalency credential, residential 

programs.

Year

Target Cost Per Residential 

Participant

Actual Cost Per Residential 

Participant

2019 $19,727 $15,197

2020 19,924 19,168

2021 20,123 10,733

2022 20,324

2023 20,527

2024 20,732

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

2019 $15,968 $16,378

2020 16,127 28,120

2021 16,289 29,688

2022 16,451

2023 16,616

2024 16,782

Additional information: The Department established different costs for programs serving 

participants who commute, programs serving participants who reside at the institution of higher 

education where the program is based, and programs with both types of participants. Targets 

are based on actual costs in 2011 (the baseline year), multiplied by an estimated rate of inflation 

for college-associated costs and then decreased by an expected improvement in efficiency 

annually of 1 percent. Actual costs for HEP programs have fluctuated since 2015, in part, due to 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

60

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 for 2020 was affected by the COVID-19 

pandemic, which resulted in the closure of many testing centers that administer high school 

equivalency tests, thus reducing the number of participants earning a high school equivalency 

credential, which is the basis for these cost measures. Data collected for fiscal year 2021 will be 

available in late 2023.

CAMP Efficiency Measures

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

2019 $15,440 $10,061

2020 15,688 11,393

2021 15,939

2022 16,194

2023 16,453

2024 16,716

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

2019 $24,745 $13,429

2020 25,141 13,804

2021 25,543

2022 25,952

2023 26,367

2024 26,789
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

61

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

2019 $18,817 $11,551

2020 19,118 15,850

2021 19,424

2022 19,735

2023 20,051

2024 20,372

Additional information: The Department established different costs for programs serving 

participants who commute, programs serving participants who reside at the institution of higher 

education where the program is based, and programs with both types of participants. Targets 

are based on actual costs in 2011 (the baseline year), multiplied by an estimated rate of inflation 

for college-associated costs and then decreased by an expected improvement in efficiency 

annually of 1 percent. Grantee performance for 2020 was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, 

which required grantees to develop strategies to provide services remotely and online in the 

middle of their project periods. Data collected for fiscal year 2021 will be available in late 2023.
62

Account Summary Table

Click here for the online version

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2024 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET

(in thousands of dollars)

Cat Code 2022 Appropriation 2023 Appropriation

2024 President's 

Budget Request

FY 2024 President's Budget Request 

Compared to FY 2023 Appropriation

Amount Percent

Education for the Disadvantaged

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

(a) Basic grants (section 1124)

Annual appropriation D 5,695,625 5,695,625 5,695,625 0 0.00%

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 763,776 763,776 763,776 0 0.00%

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

(b) Concentration grants (section 1124A)

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

(c) Targeted grants (section 1125)

Annual appropriation D 500,000 925,000 2,000,000 1,075,000 116.22%

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 4,357,550 4,357,550 4,357,550 0 0.00%

Subtotal 4,857,550 5,282,550 6,357,550 1,075,000 20.35%

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

Annual appropriation D 500,000 925,000 2,000,000 1,075,000 116.22%

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 4,357,550 4,357,550 4,357,550 0 0.00%

Subtotal 4,857,550 5,282,550 6,357,550 1,075,000 20.35%

Subtotal, Grants to LEAs 17,536,802 18,386,802 20,536,802 2,150,000 11.69%

Discretionary D 17,536,802 18,386,802 20,536,802 2,150,000 11.69%

Current 6,695,625 7,545,625 9,695,625 2,150,000 28.49%

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

2. Comprehensive literacy state development grants (ESEA II-B-2, section 2222) D 192,000 194,000 194,000 0 0.00%

3. Innovative approaches to literacy (ESEA II-B-2, section 2226) D 29,000 30,000 30,000 0 0.00%

4. State agency programs:

(a) Migrant (ESEA I-C) D 375,626 375,626 375,626 0 0.00%

(b) Neglected, delinquent and at-risk children and youth (ESEA I-D) D 48,239 49,239 52,000 2,761 5.61%

Subtotal, State agency programs 423,865 424,865 427,626 2,761 0.65%

5. Special programs for migrant students (HEA IV-A-5) D 48,123 52,123 66,123 14,000 26.86%

Total, Appropriation 18,229,790 19,087,790 21,254,551 2,166,761 11.35%

Discretionary D 18,229,790 19,087,790 21,254,551 2,166,761 11.35%

Current 7,388,613 8,246,613 10,413,374 2,166,761 26.27%

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

NOTES:

1) D = discretionary program; M = mandatory programs

2) Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.