Department of Education

EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Fiscal Year 2023 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 2022 Appropriations Reports .................................................................10

Summary of Request ..................................................................................................................11

Activities: 

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

Comprehensive literacy development grants .........................................................................25

Innovative approaches to literacy...........................................................................................30

Migrant education...................................................................................................................34

Neglected, delinquent, and at-risk children and youth............................................................41

Special programs for migrant students...................................................................................49

Account Summary Table.............................................................................................................58

State Tables*

*State tables reflecting final 2021 allocations and 2022 and 2023 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"), $21,280,551,000, of which 

$10,340,251,000 shall become available on July 1, 2023, and shall remain available through 

September 30, 2024, and of which $10,841,177,000 shall become available on October 1, 2023, 

and shall remain available through September 30, 2024, for academic year 2023-2024:1

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, to obtain annually updated 

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

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

ESEA:4 Provided further, That $6,357,550,000 shall be for targeted grants under section 1125 

of the ESEA:5 Provided further, That $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 $30,000,000 shall be for competitive grants to 

support strong partnerships, which may include those among State educational agencies, local 

educational agencies and child welfare agencies, to create and implement innovative strategies 

for improving the education of foster children and youth under part D of title I of the ESEA:8

Provided further, That the Secretary may reserve up to 10 percent of the amount referred to in 

the previous proviso to provide technical assistance in the implementation of these grants:9

Provided further, That $220,000,000 shall be for carrying out subpart 2 of part B of title II:10
2

Provided further, That $66,123,000 shall be for carrying out section 418A of the HEA:11

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.12

NOTE

A full-year 2022 appropriation for this account was not enacted at the time the budget was prepared; therefore, the 

budget assumes this account is operating under the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2022 (Division A of P.L. 117-43, 

as amended). The amounts included for 2022 reflect the annualized level provided by the continuing resolution.

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

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

3

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1 ...of which $10,340,251,000 shall become 

available on July 1, 2023, and shall remain 

available through September 30, 2024, and 

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

available on October 1, 2023, and shall 

remain available through September 30, 

2024, for academic year 2023-2024:...

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, to obtain 

annually updated local educational agencylevel census poverty data from the Bureau of 

the Census:...

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

funds to support continued work by the 

Census Bureau to update LEA-level poverty 

data.

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

shall be for concentration grants under 

section 1124A of the ESEA:...

This language establishes a specific funding 

level for Title I Concentration Grants.

5 ...Provided further, That $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, $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 $30,000,000 shall 

be for competitive grants to support strong 

partnerships, which may include those 

among State educational agencies, local 

educational agencies and child welfare 

agencies, to create and implement innovative 

strategies for improving the education of 

foster children and youth under part D of title 

I of the ESEA:...

This language would provide $30 million 

under the Neglected, Delinquent, and At-Risk 

Children and Youth program for competitive 

grants to create and implement innovative 

strategies for improving the education of 

foster children and youth.

9...Provided further, That the Secretary may 

reserve up to 10 percent of the amount 

referred to in the previous proviso to provide 

technical assistance in the implementation of 

these grants:...

This language would allow the Secretary to 

reserve up to $3 million from the proposed 

$30 million for activities to support foster 

children and youth to provide technical 

assistance to grantees. 

10...Provided further, That $220,000,000 shall 

be for carrying out subpart 2 of part B of title 

II:...

This language provides funding for 

Comprehensive literacy development grants 

and Innovative approaches to literacy.

11...Provided further, That $66,123,000 shall 

be for carrying out section 418A of the HEA.

...

This language provides funding for Special 

Programs for Migrant Students.

12...Provided further, That notwithstanding 

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

Secretary may reduce the percentage of 

funds available for a program if the Secretary 

determines that there are not a sufficient 

number of high-quality applications for that 

program.

This language 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.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

5

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2021 2022 2023

Discretionary:

Discretionary Appropriation $17,226,790 $17,226,790 $21,280,551

Total, discretionary appropriation 17,226,790 17,226,790 21,280,551

Mandatory (proposed):

Mandatory Appropriation ........................................... 0 0 16,000,000

Total, mandatory appropriation .......... 0 0 16,000,000

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 17,226,790 17,226,790 37,280,551
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

6

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2022 Discretionary $17,226,790

2023 Discretionary 21,280,551

2023 Mandatory 16,000,000

Net change +20,053,761

Increases: 2022 base

Change

from base

Program:

Increase for Grants to LEAs consistent with President 

Biden’s campaign promise to dramatically increase funding 

for Title I schools and help address long-standing funding 

disparities between under resourced school districts and 

their wealthier counterparts. 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. The proposed increase includes $16 billion in 

proposed mandatory funding. $16,536,802 +$20,000,000

Increase funding for Neglected, Delinquent and At-Risk 

Children and Youth to provide additional resources for

underserved populations covered by the program and for 

an initiative to fund competitive grants to improve

educational opportunities and outcomes of foster children 

and youth. 48,239 +33,761

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. 46,123 +20,000

Net change +20,053,761
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

7

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity 2022

Authorizedfootnote

2022

Estimate

2023

Authorized footnote 2023 Request

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

LEA grants formulas: 0 To be determined1

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

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

LEA grants formulas Targeted grants (Section 1125) (2) 4,357,550 2 6,357,550

grants formulas Targeted grants (Section 1125) - Mandatory, proposed 8,000,000

LEA grants formulas Education finance incentive grants (Section 1125A) (2) 4,357,550 2 6,357,550

LEA grants formulas Education finance incentive grants (Section 1125A) - Mandatory, 

proposed 8,000,000

Comprehensive literacy development grants (ESEA-II-B-2, Section 2222) (3)

192,000 To be determined1,3192,000

Innovative approaches to literacy (ESEA-II-B-2, Section 2226) (3)

28,000 To be determined1,328,000

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 48,239 To be determined1 82,000

Special Programs for Migrant Students (HEA IV-A-5) 04 46,123 To be determined4 66,123

Total definite authorization 0 To be determined

Total appropriation $17,226,790 $37,280,551

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2021. Reauthorization for FY 2023 is expected through appropriations action. 2 Of the total funds appropriated for Grants to LEAs, an amount equal to the fiscal year 2001 appropriation of $7,397,690 thousand is to be distributed through the 

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

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

Finance Incentive Grants formulas. In recent years, Congress specified the amounts to be distributed through each formula in the annual appropriations acts. 3 For Part B of Title II, a total of $489,168 thousand is authorized for fiscal year 2020. Of the total amount appropriated for Title II, Part B, 38.9 percent is 

authorized for Subpart 2 programs. 4 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015. Reauthorization for FY 2023 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

20141 $15,683,649 N/A $15,875,231 $15,552,693

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

20152 15,377,965 N/A 15,566,226 15,536,107

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

20163 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)

20174 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)

20185 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)

20196 $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)

20207 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 House allowance is shown as N/A because there was no Subcommittee action. The level for the Senate 

allowance reflects Senate Subcommittee action only.

3 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.

4 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. 5 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). 6 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). 7 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 17,246,790 36,756,790 33,802,790 37,246,790

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

2023 37,280,551

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

Mandatory 16,000,000

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 on the FY 2022 Consolidated Appropriations Act; the Senate allowance 

reflects the Chairman’s mark; and the Appropriation reflects the annualized continuing resolution level.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

10

Significant Items in FY 2022 Appropriations Reports

Innovative Approaches to Literacy

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

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

effective school library programs, which may include providing professional 

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

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

electronic re-sources and provide learning opportunities for all students, 

particularly those who are less likely to have access to such materials at home. 

Further, the Committee continues to direct the Department to ensure that grants 

are distributed among eligible entities that will serve geographically diverse 

areas, including rural areas

Response: The Department incorporated each of the report language directives from 

Congress into the Notice of Final Priorities and Requirement for the IAL program, 

published in the Federal Register on July 12, 2021, and in fiscal year 2021 IAL 

competition. The Department expects to continue to incorporate these priorities 

when developing a new IAL competition.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

1111

11

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 $37.2 billion in fiscal year 2023 for the programs in this account, including 

$16 billion in mandatory funding.

The $36.5 billion request for Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) supports 

President Biden’s campaign promise to triple funding for Title I schools to help address longstanding funding disparities between underresourced school districts and their wealthier 

counterparts. The program provides support 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 $192 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 $28 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 $82 million request for the State agency Neglected and Delinquent program provides a 

$3.8 million increase for programs that serve students who are educated in institutional settings 

or correctional facilities and will likely transition to local school systems, as well as $30 million 

for an initiative to fund competitive grants to improve educational opportunities and outcomes of 

foster children and youth.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

1212

12

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

increase of $20 million, or 43 percent, over the fiscal year 2022 CR level, 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 2023 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget authority:

Grants to local educational agencies

Activity and period of fund availability

2022 Estimate 2023 Request Change

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

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

Targeted grants 4,357,550 6,357,550 +$2,000,000

Education finance incentive 

grants 4,357,550 6,357,550 +$2,000,000

Total 16,536,802 20,536,802 +$4,000,000

Annual appropriation 5,695,625 9,695,625 +$4,000,000

Advance for succeeding fiscal 

year 10,841,177 10,841,177 0

Mandatory funding, proposed

Targeted grants 0 8,000,000 +8,000,000

Education finance incentive 

grants 0 8,000,000 +8,000,000

Total, Mandatory Funding 0 16,000,000 +16,000,000

Total, Discretionary and 

Mandatory Request 16,536,802 36,536,802 +20,000,00

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 

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2021; reauthorization for FY 2023 is expected through appropriations 

action.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

14

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 

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 the ESEA’s accountability and improvement

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

challenging academic standards and aligned assessments, measuring annual student progress, 

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 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

15

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.

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. 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 nonpersonnel 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 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

16

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 

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, 

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

formula.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

17

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 

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.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

18

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

2018 $6,459,401 $1,362,301 $3,969,050 $3,969,050 $15,759,802

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

FY 2023 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2023, the Administration requests $36.5 billion for Title I Grants to LEAs, 

including $20.5 billion in discretionary funds and $16 billion in mandatory funds. This request, 

$20 billion more than a fiscal year 2022 annualized CR based on the fiscal year 2021 

appropriation, makes significant progress towards President Biden’s commitment to dramatically 

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’s 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 

dramatically expanding this program, school districts can increase services for students that 

meet their local needs, such as by increasing access to and support for 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 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 other student 

subgroups. For example, this includes investments to launch and expand tutoring programs; 

hire additional instructional and mental health staff; train educators in strategies that accelerate 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

19

learning and to 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. 

While these investments are critical to responding to the pandemic, in many communities they 

are long overdue, and essential to ensuring that students receive the support they need. To 

ensure that these critical supports for students are sustained, SEAs and LEAs need additional 

long-term funding. Additional Title I funds will help SEAs and LEAs continue strategies that they 

find to have the greatest impact on students, as well as sustain additional support for students. 

These investments will not only help students recover but address the underlying disparities that 

impacted students prior to the pandemic. The requested funds will also help districts continue to 

confidently invest ARP and other relief funds, and address concerns about hitting a financial cliff 

when the relief funds expire.

PROMOTING EQUITY IN EDUCATION FUNDING SYSTEMS

The proposed additional $20 billion in funding will make significant progress towards closing the 

estimated $23 billion funding gap between majority white and majority non-white school districts, 

as well as gaps in the allocation of State and local education funds to districts serving high 

concentrations of students from low-income backgrounds and districts enrolling a majority of 

students from wealthier families. These gaps in funding produce inequitable access to key 

determinants of future success, including high-quality preschool, rigorous coursework, and 

effective educators. However, as federal funding only comprises approximately 8 percent of 

total public elementary and secondary education funding in typical years (excluding COVIDrelief funds), this problem cannot be solved through increased federal funding alone. 

In order to create more equitable school finance systems, the request for fiscal year 2023 would 

help 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 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

20

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, 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 

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.4

The Administration’s proposal includes 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 by paying 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 throughout the process. 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 a plan to transition to a new formula; and 

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

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

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

Grants to local educational agencies

21

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. 

The 2023 request also supports efforts to increase transparency through development of a 

P-12 equity data dashboard at the Department (see description of request in the Program 

Administration account). The dashboard would aggregate existing information about factors 

affecting P-12 educational opportunity and equity and make such data readily available to the 

public. The dashboard could include school-level data on resources (including per-pupil 

expenditures), school environmental factors, opportunities to engage in high-quality learning, 

access to well-rounded coursework, entry into college and career pathways, access to most 

prepared and effective school staff, or other factors that can increase student well-being and 

lead to success. This type of information would help increase transparency, increase meaningful 

engagement with diverse stakeholders, and promote informed decision making that can lead to 

strategies for eliminating inequities in the P-12 system. 

The Department will also continue to support State and LEA efforts to address educational 

equity through monitoring on and technical assistance for meeting resource equity requirements 

that exist under current statute. 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. 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

22

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

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

Output Measures 2021 2022 2023

Allocations by LEA Poverty Rate:

0-15%

0-15% # of LEAs 6,556 7,081 7,081

0-15% Dollars $3,996,811 $4,513,906 $9,608,614

0-15% % of Total $ 24.60 27.77 26.78

0-15% # of Formula Eligible Children 2,462,624 2,638,311 2,638,311

0-15% 0-15% $ Per Formula Child $1,623 $1,711 $3,642

15-25%

15-25% # of LEAs 4,158 4,042 4,042

15-25% Dollars $6,644,217 $6,813,561 $15,077,583

15-25% % of Total $ 40.88 41.91 42.01

15-25% # of Formula Eligible Children 3,519,898 3,379,938 3,379,938

15-25% 15-25% $ Per Formula Child $1,888 $2,016 $4,461

>25% 

>25% # of LEAs 1,964 1,549 1,549

>25% Dollars $5,610,375 $4,928,096 $11,201,148

>25% % of Total $ 34.52 30.32 31.21

>25% # of Formula Eligible Children 2,765,235 2,268,229 2,268,229

>25% >25% $ Per Formula Child $2,029 $2,173 $4,938

LEA Allocation Subtotal $16,251,403 $16,255,563 $35,887,345

BIA/Outlying Areas $181,850 $181,850 $400,750

N&D Program (Part D, Subpart 2) $98,549 $94,389 $143,707

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

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

Grants to LEAs Total $16,536,802 $16,536,802 $36,536,802

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

on the cumulative effect of the Federal resources provided for the program as well as the 

resources and efforts invested by those served by the program. 

Performance measures for this program rely on data submitted annually through the ESEA

Consolidated State Performance Reports, which include State and local performance 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

23

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

2018 52.0% 58.8%

2019 56.0 65.3

2020 60.0 Not available

2021 64.0

2022 68.0

2023 68.0

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

2018 50.0% 37.3%

2019 54.0 60.4

2020 58.0 Not available

2021 62.0

2022 66.0

2023 66.0

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

2018 48.7% 45.0%

2019 52.7 55.8

2020 56.7 Not available

2021 60.7

2022 64.7

2023 64.7

Additional information: Due to the extraordinary circumstances created by the COVID-19 

pandemic, the U.S. Department of Education waived Title I, Part A assessment requirements for 

all States for the 2019-2020 school year. As a result, data on the performance of students on 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

24

State reading assessments for the 2019-2020 school year is not available. Data for 2021 will be 

available in late fall of 2022.

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

2018 54.0% 56.3%

2019 58.0 58.8

2020 62.0 60.0

2021 66.0

2022 70.0

2023 74.0

Additional information: Data for 2020 are reported for 50 States, including DC and Puerto 

Rico; data are not available for Illinois and Texas. Thirty States reported decreasing the 

graduation rate gap in 2020. These results reflect data reported to the Department by States 

and reviewed through the Department’s data quality review processes. The results may reflect 

data quality issues. The Department continues to provide technical assistance to States to 

improve the quality of the data. In addition, the results may reflect changes in State policy (e.g., 

requirements for graduation), including modified graduation requirements for the 2019-2020 

school year due to the extraordinary circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic.

.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

25

Comprehensive literacy development grants

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2023 Authorization: To be determined 1

Budget Authority:

2022

Estimate

2023

Request Change

$192,000 $192,000 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, such as children 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 2023 is expected through appropriations 

action.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Comprehensive literacy development grants

26

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)

2018 $190,000

2019 190,000

2020 192,000

2021 192,000

2022 Estimate 192,000

FY 2023 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2023, the Administration requests $192 million for Comprehensive Literacy State 

Development Grants, level with a fiscal year 2022 annualized CR based on the fiscal year 2021 

appropriation. The request would support new or continuation awards for approximately

25 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 

21 percent of 8th-grade students from low-income backgrounds.

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

of not graduating high school, leading to a lifetime of diminished earnings and other poor 

outcomes. Further, significant differences in reading skills, including pre-literacy skills, have 

been observed between children from low-income backgrounds and other children. For 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Comprehensive literacy development grants

27

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.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2021 2022 2023

Funding for new awards 0 0 $138,077

Number of new awards 0 0 9

Funding for continuation awards $187,086 $187,080 $48,903

Number of continuation awards 24 24 16

Peer review of new award applications 0 0 $100

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

Amount for Outlying Areas $960 $960 $960

National activities (including evaluation) $2,994 $3,000 $3,000

NOTES: 

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

fiscal year. Accordingly, the outputs from fiscal year 2021 appropriations shown above, for example, will generally be 

obligated in the following year. 

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 2021, it may do so in fiscal year 2022 or 2023.

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 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.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Comprehensive literacy development grants

28

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

oral language skills.

Year Target Actual

2018 52% 51%

2019 52 66

2020 52 75

2021 75 54

2022 59

2023 64

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 2022 will be available 

in 2023.

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

on State English language arts assessments.

Year Target Actual

2018 Set a baseline

2019 43% 44%

2020 43 Not applicable

2021 43 34

2022 39

2023 44

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 2022 will be available in 2023.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Comprehensive literacy development grants

29

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

on State English language arts assessments.

Year Target Actual

2018 Set a baseline 41%

2019 42% 44

2020 42 Not applicable

2021 43 38

2022 43

2023 48

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 2022 will be available in 2023.

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

on State English language arts assessments.

Year Target Actual

2018 Set a baseline 38%

2019 39% 41

2020 39 Not applicable

2021 42 40

2022 45

2023 50

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 2022 will be available in 2023.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

30

Innovative approaches to literacy

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2023 Authorization: To be determined 1

Budget Authority:

2022

Estimate

2023

Request Change 

$28,000 $28,000 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)

2018 $27,000

2019 27,000

2020 27,000

2021 28,000

2022 Estimate 28,000

FY 2023 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2023, the Administration requests $28 million for Innovative Approaches to 

Literacy, level with a fiscal year 2022 annualized CR based on the fiscal year 2021 

appropriation. Funds would be used to continue awards initially made in fiscal years 2021 

and 2022.

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2021; reauthorization for FY 2023 is expected through appropriations 

action.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Innovative approaches to literacy

31

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. 

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

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

access to developmentally appropriate reading material in the home. 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 2021 2022 2023

Funding for new awards $25,348 0 0

Number of new awards 40 0 0

Peer review $206 0 0

Funding for continuation awards $2,446 $28,000 $28,000

Number of continuation awards 4 40 40

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 2021, it 

may do so in fiscal years 2022 and 2023.

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 

populations served, and, therefore, not all grantees reported on each performance measure. 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Innovative approaches to literacy

32

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

significant gains in oral language skills.

Year Target Actual

2018 70% 70%

2019 70 30

2020 50 67

2021 50 57

2022 50

2023 50

Additional information: 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. Despite setbacks in the 2019-2020 

school year due to the COVID-19 pandemic, grantees performed well on this measure in 2020.

Data for 2021 will be available in 2023.

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

2018 70% 54%

2019 70 20

2020 30 31

2021 30 41

2022 30

2023 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 2020, 17 grantees reported data for this measure. Data for 

2022 will be available in 2023.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Innovative approaches to literacy

33

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

2018 70% 58%

2019 70 29

2020 30 29

2021 32 40

2022 32

2023 32

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 2020, 18 grantees reported data for this measure. Data for 

2022 will be available in 2023.

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

language-appropriate book of their own.

Year Target Actual

2018 100% 99%

2019 100 98

2020 98 100

2021 99 99

2022 99

2023 99

Data for 2022 will be available in 2023.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

34

Migrant education

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2023 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

Migrant

Period of fund availability: 

2022 Estimate 2023 Request Change

$375,626 $375,626 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Migrant Education program (MEP) provides financial assistance to State educational 

agencies (SEAs) to establish and improve programs of education for children of migratory 

farmworkers and fishers. The goal of the MEP is to enable migratory children and youth: (1) to 

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

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

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

achieve this objective, program services help migratory children overcome the educational 

disruption that results from repeated moves. The program statute encourages activities to 

promote coordination of needed services across States and encourages greater access for 

migratory children to services available under Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies 

(LEAs) and other programs authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

(ESEA), so that MEP funds can be used for services not already available from those programs 

to meet the unique needs of migratory students. 

Eligible children are children of migratory agricultural workers or migratory fishers, or who are 

migratory agricultural workers or fishers themselves, and who have made a "qualifying move" 

within the last 3 years. A move is considered to be a qualifying move if it is a change of 

residence due to economic necessity and (1) involves crossing school district boundaries; 

(2) 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 for FY 2023 is expected through appropriations 

action.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant education

35

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) 

2018 $374,751

2019 374,751

2020 374,751

2021 375,626

2022 Estimate 375,626

FY 2023 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2023, the Administration requests $375.6 million for the Title I Migrant Education 

Program (MEP), level with a fiscal year 2022 annualized CR based on the fiscal year 2021

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. In particular, migratory children would benefit from the 

expansion of resources and services supported by the significant increase proposed for Title I 

activities in the 2023 request.

Migratory children 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. 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, 

States continue to deal with the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, such as school 

closures and social distancing, which have exacerbated these obstacles. The COVID-19 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant education

36

pandemic has also highlighted the need for States to continue identifying eligible migratory 

children and youth outside of traditional school settings, and to adapt instructional and support 

services to address the changing needs of migratory children.

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 belong to families that are likely to experience food and job insecurity as well as 

poor health and housing conditions. During the 2019-20 school year, 281,271 children birth 

through 21 years old were identified as eligible for services, and 27.9 percent of these children 

had moved within the past 12 months and 8.5 percent were identified as students with 

disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. In addition, nearly 43.6 percent 

of eligible children and youth aged 3 through 21 years old were English learners and 28.7 

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 failing to meet 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 2019-20, 7.6 percent of these children were 

identified as out-of-school youth or school-aged youth who do not attend school. 

During school year 2019-20, States and local entities provided services under this program to 

200,732 identified migratory children 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 10,918 children aged birth 

through 2 years old, 3,071 received services; of the 30,586 aged 3 through 5 years old (not 

kindergarten), 18,107 received services; of the 218,287 in kindergarten through grade 12, 

167,435 received services; and of the 21,405 identified as out-of-school youth, 12,085 received 

services. The Department expects to support a similar level of services using fiscal year 2023 

funds. 

The Department would continue to reserve approximately $10 million in fiscal year 2023 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). 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant education

37

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2021 2022 2023

Number of eligible children aged 

birth through 21

281,271 281,271 281,271

SEA program:

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

SEA program Range of State awards 0-$115,956 0-$113,491 0-$113,491

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

38

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

2018 33.4% 26.0%

2019 33.4 26.9

2020 33.4 Not available

2021 30.0

2022 31.0

2023 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

2018 32.5% 25.4%

2019 32.5 25.7

2020 32.5 Not available

2021 30.0

2022 31.0

2023 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. Data for 2021 will be available in late summer of 2022.

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

39

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

Year Target Actual

2018 46 46

2019 46 46

2020 46 46

2021 46

2022 46

2023 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 

State MEP directors also agreed that MSIX had moderately or substantially improved 

these other practices.

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

Migrant education

40

• 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

41

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 2023 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

Neglected, delinquent and at-risk

Period of fund availability: 

2022 Estimate 2023 Request Change

$48,239 $82,000 +$33,761

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 and (1) to help them meet the same challenging State academic standards 

that all children 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) for provision of education services to neglected and delinquent (N 

and D) children and youth who are in State-run institutions, attending community day programs, 

and in correctional facilities. Funds are allocated to States through a formula based on a count 

of children and youth in State-operated institutions and per-pupil education expenditures for the 

State. Each State’s N and D count is based on the number of children and youth enrolled for at 

least 20 hours of instruction a week in State institutions or community day programs for 

neglected or delinquent children and youth, or at least 15 hours of instruction in adult 

correctional institutions. State institutions serving children with an average length of stay of at 

least 30 days are eligible to receive funds. Adult correctional institutions must give priority for 

services to youth who are likely to be released within a 2-year period.

The program requires institutions receiving funds to gear their services to the same college- and 

career-ready State academic standards that all children are expected to meet under the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Similar to the school-wide program option 

under the Title I, Part A Grants to Local Educational Agencies program, all juvenile facilities may 

operate institution-wide education programs in which they use program funds in combination 

with other available Federal and State funds. This option allows juvenile institutions to serve a 

larger proportion of their eligible population and to align their programs more closely with other 

education services in order to meet participants’ educational and occupational training needs. 

1 The GEPA extension applied through September 30, 2021; reauthorization for FY 2023 is expected through 

appropriations action.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected, delinquent and at-risk children and youth

42

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 offenders 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) 

2018 $47,614

2019 47,614

2020 47,614

2021 48,239

2022 Estimate 48,239

FY 2023 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2023, the Administration requests $82 million for the Neglected, Delinquent and 

At-Risk program, $33.8 million more than a fiscal year 2022 annualized CR based on the fiscal 

year 2021 appropriation. The request would provide $52 million, an increase of $3.8 million, for 

the Subpart 1 program, and $30 million for a new initiative to support children and youth in 

foster care. 

The proposed increase for Subpart 1 programs provides additional resources to this 

underserved population after almost a decade that included reductions in funding. Furthermore, 

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 proposed increase also reflects 

the Administration’s commitment to address resource inequities across our education system, 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected, delinquent and at-risk children and youth

43

particularly for underserved students such as students in correctional institutions or other 

institutional settings.

High-quality education in correctional institutions can help equip their students with the skills 

needed to successfully reenter their communities and either continue their education or join the 

workforce.1 Correctional facilities face unique challenges to 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 into their communities and 

schools. In addition, approximately 34 percent (21,661) of the youth served by the program in 

2018-19 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. 

Improving Outcomes for Children and Youth in Foster Care

Children and youth in foster care, who have a high likelihood of changing schools when first 

entering care and when moving between foster homes, and higher rates of chronic absenteeism 

than non-foster students, are especially at risk for poor educational outcomes. These include 

low reading achievement, low rates of high school completion, and low rates of enrollment in 

postsecondary education and attainment of a bachelor's degree compared to students who are 

not in foster care. In addition, the rate of students in foster care receiving special education 

services is more than twice that of their peers who are not in foster care. Students in foster care 

are also more likely to have out-of-school suspensions and be expelled from school than 

students who are not in foster care.2

The most recent reauthorization of the ESEA in 2015 included important provisions to help 

improve the educational stability of children and youth in foster care. However, ESEA does not 

require States and districts to set aside funds to implement these provisions or more generally 

to help address the special needs of students in foster care for support services, whether they 

be academic, social, emotional or mental health services. As a result, State and district 

implementation of these provisions and other strategies for supporting students in foster care 

has varied widely, underscoring the need for dedicated funding to help this vulnerable group.

The $30 million initiative to support children and youth in foster care would fund competitive 

grants for partnerships among SEAs, one or more LEAs, and State or county child welfare 

agencies to improve the educational outcomes of children and youth in foster care. The 

partnerships would use the grants to strengthen their implementation of ESEA foster youth 

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 Legal Center for Foster Care Education. Fast Facts: Foster Care and Education Data at a Glance. January 2022. 

https://www.fostercareandeducation.org/OurWork/NationalDatasheet2022.aspx
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected, delinquent and at-risk children and youth

44

school stability and data requirements and to provide students in foster care with academic, 

social, emotional, and mental health services that would improve their school outcomes. Such 

services may include matching students in foster care with tutors and mentors as well with 

educational decisionmakers and advocates who would help ensure these students receive the 

support they need from their school districts and child welfare agencies to thrive in school. The 

education and child welfare agencies in the partnerships would also use the grants to collect 

and share data on the educational experiences and outcomes of children in foster care and 

leverage this data to improve their services and policies for these children.

Recipients would be required to carry out evaluation activities and disseminate information on 

promising strategies and lessons learned. In addition, the Department would reserve $3 million 

for a national effort to highlight and disseminate in the field best practices for improving the 

educational outcomes of foster youth and to provide technical assistance to grantees.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2021 2022 2023

Number of participating institutions 680 680 680

Estimated number of students 

served 63,596 63,596 63,596

Average Federal contribution per 

child (whole dollars) $740 $740 $798

Range of awards to States 0-$3,308 0-$3,002 0-$3,443

Average State award $904 $904 $975

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

Foster care initiative:

Funding for new awards 0 0 $26,900

Number of new awards 0 0 9-13

Range of awards 0 0 $2,000-3,000

Average award 0 0 $2,500

Peer review 0 0 $100

Technical assistance 0 0 $3,000

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 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected, delinquent and at-risk children and youth

45

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.

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

2018 19.8% 13.7%

2019 20.8 13.5

2020 21.8 13.6

2021 22.8

2022 23.8

2023 23.8

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 represent all 51 

participating states reporting both age data and at a minimum one of two outcomes—receiving a 

GED or high school diploma. However, four states did not report outcomes of students after 

their departure of a Title I, Part D program. Twenty-four additional states reported zeroes for 

outcomes after students exited the program. Many States have reported that they are unable to 

collect data on students after they leave institutions and return to their communities, and in 

some States there are legal prohibitions against collecting data on students after they exit

facilities. In addition, students in institutional facilities were disproportionately affected by the 

COVID-19 pandemic, as they were unable to meet with their families and friends during 

quarantine periods. Data from 2021 will be available in late fall of 2022.

Measure: The percentage of students supported through the N and D program earning high 

school course credits.

Year Target Actual

2018 62.6% 52.1%

2019 63.6 53.6

2020 64.6 52.1

2021 65.6

2022 66.6

2023 66.6

Additional information: The source of the data is EDFacts, the Department’s system for 

States to submit kindergarten through grade 12 data. This measure includes high school course 

credits earned while in the N and D program as well as those earned up to 90 days after exiting 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected, delinquent and at-risk children and youth

46

the program. The measure includes students between the ages of 13 and 21 in neglected, 

juvenile detention, and juvenile correctional institutions, and not students in adult correctional 

institutions. Students in institutional facilities were disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 

pandemic, as they were unable to meet with their families and friends during quarantine periods. 

Many States have reported that they are unable to collect data on students after they leave 

institutions and return to their communities, and in some States there are legal prohibitions 

against collecting data on students after they exit facilities. Data from 2021 will be available in 

late fall of 2022.

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

2018 77.4 64.5

2019 78.4 62.8

2020 79.4 58.8

2021 80.4

2022 81.4

2023 81.4

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

2018 78.9% 67.0%

2019 79.9 63.1

2020 80.9 59.3

2021 81.9

2022 82.9

2023 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. A number of factors may have contributed to the variability in 

performance for these measures, including the quality of the data reported by facilities, 

changeover in staff overseeing data reporting, and changes in reporting systems. In addition, a 

major goal of the program is to move students out of institutions and back into communities; 

consequently, while the program may be serving significantly fewer students, these students 

often face greater academic challenges. Performance 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. Students in institutional facilities were also 

disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, as they were unable to meet with their 

families and friends during quarantine periods. Many States have reported that they are unable 

to collect data on students after they leave institutions and return to their communities, and in 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected, delinquent and at-risk children and youth

47

some States there are legal prohibitions against collecting data on students after they exit

facilities. Data from 2021 will be available in late fall of 2022.

Efficiency measures

Measure: The cost per high school diploma or equivalent.

Year Target Actual

2018 $4,255 $6,554

2019 4,211 7,070

2020 4,170 8,127

2021 4,128

2022 4,087

2023 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 2020 may in part be 

due to educational disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, including a decrease in the 

number of students receiving diplomas. Data from 2021 will be available in late fall of 2022.

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.

• 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.

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

48

• At the time of the data collection, few State agency coordinators reported that their facility 

implemented an institution-wide N and D project.

• 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.

• 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. 

• 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.

• 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.

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

49

Special programs for migrant students

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2023 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

Special Programs for Migrant Students

Period of fund availability: 

2022 Estimate 2023 Request Change

$46,123 $66,123 +$20,000

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, 

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015; reauthorization for FY 2023 is expected through appropriations 

action.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

50

quality, and promise of applications received.

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands) 

2018 $44,623

2019 44,623

2020 45,623

2021 46,123

2022 Estimate 46,123

FY 2023 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2023, the Administration requests $66.1 million for Special Programs for Migrant 

Students, $20 million more than a fiscal year 2022 annualized CR based on the fiscal year 2021 

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 81 percent from 2018 to 2019, and 62 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 2017-86: 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 2015-16, 

individuals aged 14-19 constituted six percent of farmworkers, and one-third of farmworkers 

1 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2021). The Condition of Education 

2021 (NCES 2021-144), Undergraduate and Retention Rates. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_ctr.asp 2 https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/naws/pdfs/NAWS%20Research%20Report%2014.pdf
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

51

overall were younger than 35; average educational attainment was 9th grade; only 35 percent of 

respondents said they could speak English well; and 21 percent of farmworkers had family 

incomes below the poverty level. However, a sizable group of survey respondents expressed 

interest in pursuing further education or training and 24 percent of farmworkers surveyed 

reported having taken at least one adult education class. Among the most common courses 

respondents attended were English language instruction, job training, college or university 

classes, and high school equivalency classes; however, their limited education and income 

affects their ability to pursue postsecondary education or obtain skilled work that pays higher 

wages. 

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 2020 was $28,900, 

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 

2018 the median earnings for full-time, full-year wage and salary workers aged 25-34 were 

$34,900 for a person with a high school diploma or equivalent; $40,000 for a person with an 

associate’s degree; and $54,700 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 19, 2022). 2 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). The Condition of Education 

2020 (NCES 2020-144), Annual Earnings. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=77
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

52

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2021 2022 2023

Outreach, technical assistance, and 

professional development $231 $231 $331

HEP:

HEP Number of students served 4,054 4,054 5,800

HEP Funding for new awards $6,640 $1,695 $9,800

HEP Number of new awards 14 3-4 16-21

HEP Peer review of new award applications $47 $50 $150

HEP Average new award $474 $423 $475

HEP Funding for continuation awards $16,067 $21,201 $22,946

HEP Number of continuation awards 35 45 49

HEP Average continuation award $459 $471 $468

HEP Average Federal contribution per student 

(whole dollars) $5,612 $5,660 $5,660

CAMP:

CAMP Number of students served 2,246 2,246 3,200

CAMP Funding for new awards $7,086 $4,052 $9,800

CAMP Number of new awards 15 7-9 18-22

CAMP Peer review of new award applications $47 $50 $150

CAMP Average new award $472 $450 $450

CAMP Funding for continuation awards $16,005 $18,844 $22,946

CAMP Number of continuation awards 38 45 54

CAMP Average continuation award $421 $419 $425

CAMP Average Federal contribution per student 

(whole dollars) $10,302 $10,216 $10,216

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 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.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

53

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

2018 69.0% 64.9%

2019 69.0 66.6

2020 69.0 62.0

2021 69.0

2022 69.0

2023 69.0

Additional information: The source of data is grantee performance reports. Targets have 

remained the same over the past several years because changes to State academic standards 

for elementary and secondary education have led to more challenging high school equivalency 

assessments that have resulted in fluctuations in student performance. 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. Data 

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

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

2018 80.0% 82.1%

2019 80.0 83.9

2020 80.0

2021 80.0

2022 80.0

2023 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. Data collected for fiscal year 2021 will be available in late 2022.

Goal: Assist migrant and seasonal farmworker students in successfully completing their 

first academic year of college and in continuing their postsecondary education.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

54

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

2018 86.0% 83.5%

2019 86.0 87.9

2020 86.0 85.8

2021 86.0

2022 86.0

2023 86.0

Additional information: The source of data is grantee performance reports. Data for projects 

completing their first year of implementation are not included in the data for any given year 

because projects receive their initial funding in the fall, after the school year may have already 

started. Thus, the measure reflects the percentage of participants completing the first year of 

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

2018 88.0% 96.2%

2019 90.0 96.4

2020 92.0 96.1

2021 92.0

2022 92.0

2023 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 2021 will be available in late 2022.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

55

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.

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

2017 $9,931 $9,009

2018 10,030 9,408

2019 10,131 8,594

2020 10,232

2021 10,334

2022 10,438

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

programs.

Year

Target Cost Per Residential 

Participant

Actual Cost Per Residential 

Participant

2017 $19,338 $14,036

2018 19,531 13,164

2019 19,727 15,197

2020 19,924

2021 20,123

2022 20,324

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

2017 $15,653 $13,932

2018 15,810 13,650

2019 15,968 16,378

2020 16,127

2021 16,289

2022 16,451
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

56

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 

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. In addition, grantees had 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 2022.

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

2017 $14,958 $12,009

2018 15,197 11,393

2019 15,440 10,061

2020 15,688

2021 15,939

2022 16,194

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

2017 $23,972 $14,823

2018 24,356 13,105

2019 24,745 13,429

2020 25,141

2021 25,543

2022 25,952
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Special programs for migrant students

57

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

2017 $18,229 $13,765

2018 18,521 12,939

2019 18,817 11,551

2020 19,118

2021 19,424

2022 19,735

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 2022.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

58

Account Summary Table

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2023 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET

(in thousands of dollars)

Cat

Code 2021 Appropriation 2022 Estimate 2023 Request

2023 Request to 2022 Estimate

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 0 0 2,000,000 2,000,000 ---

Mandatory appropriation M 0 0 8,000,000 8,000,000 ---

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

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

Annual appropriation D 0 0 2,000,000 2,000,000 ---

Mandatory appropriation M 0 0 8,000,000 8,000,000 ---

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

Subtotal, Grants to LEAs 16,536,802 16,536,802 36,536,802 20,000,000 120.94%

Discretionary D 16,536,802 16,536,802 20,536,802 4,000,000 24.19%

Mandatory M 0 0 16,000,000 16,000,000 ---

Current 5,695,625 5,695,625 25,695,625 20,000,000 351.15%

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

2.

3.

4.

5.

NOTES

1) D = discretionary program; M = mandatory programs

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

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

Innovative approaches to literacy (ESEA II-B-2, section 2226) D 28,000 28,000 28,000 0 0.00%

State agency programs:

(a)

(b)

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

Neglected, delinquent and at-risk children and youth (ESEA I-D) D 48,239 48,239 82,000 33,761 69.99%

Subtotal, State agency programs 423,865 423,865 457,626 33,761 7.97%

Special programs for migrant students (HEA IV-A-5) D 46,123 46,123 66,123 20,000 43.36%

Total, Appropriation 17,226,790 17,226,790 37,280,551 20,053,761 116.41%

Total, Budget authority D 17,226,790 17,226,790 21,280,551 4,053,761 23.53%

Mandatory M 0 0 16,000,000 16,000,000 ---

Current 6,385,613 6,385,613 26,439,374 314.05%

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

:

Click here for accessible version