Department of Education

EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Fiscal Year 2021 Budget Request

CONTENTS

Page

Appropriations Language ........................................................................................................B-1

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes.......................................................................B-2

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers ..............................................................................B-3

Summary of Changes .............................................................................................................B-4

Authorizing Legislation............................................................................................................B-5

Appropriations History.............................................................................................................B-6

Summary of Request ..............................................................................................................B-7

Activities:

Grants to local educational agencies................................................................................. B-9

Comprehensive literacy development grants................................................................... B-19

Innovative approaches to literacy .................................................................................... B-24

State agency programs:

Migrant ...................................................................................................................... B-28

Neglected and delinquent.......................................................................................... B-34

Special programs for migrant students ............................................................................ B-40

State tables*

State tables reflecting final 2019 allocations and 2020 and 2021 estimates are posted on the 

Department’s webpage at: https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/statetables/index.html

EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

B-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"), $16,996,790,000, of which 

$6,077,990,000 shall become available on July 1, 2020, and shall remain available through 

September 30, 2021, and of which $10,841,177,000 shall become available on October 1, 2020, 

and shall remain available through September 30, 2021, for academic year 2020-2021:

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, 2019, 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 $4,244,050,000 shall be for targeted grants under section 1125 of 

the ESEA:5 Provided further, That $4,244,050,000 shall be for education finance incentive 

grants under section 1125A of the ESEA:

6 Provided further, That $219,000,000 shall be for 

carrying out subpart 2 of part B of title II: 7 Provided further, That $45,623,000 shall be for 

carrying out section 418A of the HEA.]8(Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2020.)

NOTES

The appropriations language for the Education for the Disadvantaged account is deleted because the fiscal year 2021 

President’s Budget Request would consolidate most formula and competitive grant programs authorized by the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended, and related programs, into an Elementary and Secondary 

Education for the Disadvantaged Block Grant in a new Improving Elementary and Secondary Education account.

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

B-2

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1

[...of which $6,077,990,000 shall become 

available on July 1, 2020, and shall remain 

available through September 30, 2021, and 

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

available on October 1, 2020, and shall 

remain available through September 30, 

2021, for academic year 2020-2021:]

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, 2019, 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 $4,244,050,000 

shall be for targeted grants under section 

1125 of the ESEA:...]

This language establishes a specific funding 

level for Title I Targeted Grants.

6

[...Provided further, $4,244,050,000 shall be 

for education finance incentive grants under 

section 1125A of the ESEA:...]

This language establishes a specific funding 

level for Title I Education Finance Incentive 

Grants.

7

[...Provided further, That $219,000,000 

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.

8

[...Provided further, That $45,623,000 shall 

be for carrying out section 418A of the HEA.]

This language provides funding for Special 

Programs for Migrant Students.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

B-3

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2019 2020 2021

Discretionary:

Discretionary Appropriation ......................................... $16,543,790 $16,996,790 0

Total, discretionary appropriation ...... 16,543,790 16,996,790 0

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 ...................... 16,543,790 16,996,790 0
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

B-4

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2020.................................................................................................. $16,996,790

2021................................................................................................ 0

Net change................................................................. -16,996,790

Decreases: 2020 base

Change

from base

Program:

Eliminate separate funding for the programs in this 

account because the fiscal year 2021 President’ Budget 

Request would consolidate most elementary and 

secondary formula and competitive grant programs into an 

Elementary and Secondary Education for the 

Disadvantaged Block Grant (ESED Block Grant) in a new 

Improving Elementary and Secondary Education account. 

The ESED Block Grant would provide States with more 

flexible resources to allow them to determine how best to 

serve their students. $16,996,790 -$16,996,790

Net change -16,996,790
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

B-5

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity 2020

Authorized

footnote 2020

Estimate

2021

Authorized

footnote 2021

Request

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

LEA grants formulas: $16,182,345 $16,182,3451

LEA grants form ulas Basic grants (Section 1124) (2)$6,459,401 (2)0

LEA grants form ulas Concentration grants (Section 1124A) (2)1,362,301 (2)0

LEA grants form ulas Targeted grants (Section 1125) (2) 4,244,050 (2) 0

LEA grants form ulas Education finance incentive grants (Section 1125A) (2) 4,244,050 (2) 0

Comprehensive literacy development grants (ESEA-IIB-2, Section 2222)

(3)

192,000

(1)(3)

0

Innovative approaches to literacy (ESEA-II-B-2, 

Section 2226)

(3)

27,000

(1)(3)

0

State agency programs:

Migrant (ESEA I-C) 374,751 374,751 374,75110

Neglected and delinquent (ESEA I-D) 47,614 47,614 47,61410

Special Programs for Migrant Students (HEA IV-A-5) 04 45,623 0

4 0

Total definite authorization $16,604,710 $16,604,710

Total appropriation $16,996,790 0

1 The GEPA extension applies through September 30, 2021.

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. No reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2021.

B-5B-5B-5
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

B-6

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance Footnote

Senate 

Allowance Footnote AppropriationFootnote

2012 $16,253,026 $15,949,3191$15,741,7031$15,741,703

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

2013 15,558,649 15,208,151215,840,103214,921,636

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

2014 15,683,649 N/A315,875,231415,552,693

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

2015 15,377,965 N/A315,566,226515,536,107

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

2016 16,592,546 14,869,641

6

15,455,802616,016,790

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

2017 16,043,790 15,986,790716,066,790716,143,7907

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

2018 16,347,558 15,953,790816,169,198816,107,7818

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

2019 $15,926,790 $16,443,7909$16,568,7909$16,543,7909

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

2020 16,376,790 17,563,802 16,543,79010 $16,996,790

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

2021 0

(2021 Advance for 2022) 0

1 The level for the House allowance reflects an introduced bill and the level for the Senate allowance reflects Senate 

Committee action only.

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

proceeded in the 112th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the Senate Committee.

3 The House allowance is shown as N/A because there was no Subcommittee action.

4 The level for the House allowance reflects the House-passed full-year continuation resolution.

5 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Senate Subcommittee action only.

6 The levels for House and Senate allowances reflect action on the regular annual 2016 appropriations bill, which 

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

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

appropriations bill; the Appropriation reflects the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2017.

8 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).

9 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).

10 The Senate allowance reflects the Chairman’s mark; the Appropriation reflects the Further Consolidated 

Appropriation Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94).
B-7

B-7

B-7

Summary of R equest

Click here for accessible version

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2021 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET

(in thousands of dollars)

Cat 

Code

2019

Appropriation

2020

Appropriation

2021 President's 

Budget

2021 President's Budget Compared to 

2020 Appropriation

Amount Percent

1.

Subtotal 6,459,401 6,459,401 0 (6,459,401) -100.00%

(b)

(c)

(d)

Subtotal, Grants to LEAs 15,859,802 16,309,802 0 (16,309,802) -100.00%

Annual appropriation D 5,018,625 5,468,625 0 (5,468,625) -100.00%

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 10,841,177 10,841,177 0 (10,841,177) -100.00%

2.

3.

4.

Subtotal, State agency programs 422,365 422,365 0 (422,365) -100.00%

5.

Total, Appropriation D 16,543,790 16,996,790 0 (16,996,790) -100.00%

Total, Budget authority D 16,543,790 16,996,790 10,841,177 (6,155,613) -36.22%

Current 5,702,613 6,155,613 0 (6,155,613) -100.00%

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

NOTES: D = discretionary program; M = mandatory program 

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding.

Education for the Disadvantaged

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

(a) Basic grants (section 1124)

Annual appropriation D 5,018,625 5,468,625 0 (5,468,625) -100.00%

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 1,440,776 990,776 0 (990,776) -100.00%

Concentration grants (section 1124A)

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 1,362,301 1,362,301 0 (1,362,301) -100.00%

Targeted grants (section 1125)

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 4,019,050 4,244,050 0 (4,244,050) -100.00%

Education finance incentive grants (section 1125A)

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 4,019,050 4,244,050 0 (4,244,050) -100.00%

Comprehensive literacy development grants (ESEA II-B-2, section 2222) D 190,000 192,000 0 (192,000) -100.00%

Innovative approaches to literacy (ESEA II-B-2, section 2226) D 27,000 27,000 0 (27,000) -100.00%

State agency programs:

(a)

(b)

Migrant (ESEA I-C) D 374,751 374,751 0 (374,751) -100.00%

Neglected and delinquent (ESEA I-D) D 47,614 47,614 0 (47,614) -100.00%

Special programs for migrant students (HEA IV-A-5) D 44,623 45,623 0 (45,623) -100.00%
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

B-8B-8

B-8

Summary of Request

The Administration is not requesting funds for any of the programs in the Education for the 

Disadvantaged account for fiscal year 2021. Instead, the request would consolidate these 

programs into the proposed Elementary and Secondary Education for the Disadvantaged Block 

Grant (ESED Block Grant). ESED Block Grant funds would be allocated by formula to State and 

local educational agencies (LEAs), which would have discretion to use those funds for any 

authorized purpose of the consolidated programs, including activities currently supported by the 

programs in this account. For more information on the ESED Block Grant, see the Improving 

Elementary and Secondary Education account.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

B-9

Activities:

Grants to local educational agencies

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: $16,182,3451

Budget authority:

Activity and period of fund availability

2020

Appropriation

2021 

Request

Change from

2020 to 2021

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

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

Targeted grants 4,244,050 0 -4,244,050

Education finance incentive grants 4,244,050 0 -4,244,050

Total 16,309,802 0 -16,309,802

Annual appropriation 5,468,625 0 -5,468,625

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

_________________

1 The GEPA extension applies through September 30, 2021.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

especially in high-poverty areas, for local programs that provide extra academic support to help 

students in high-poverty schools meet 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 standards through one of two models: a 

targeted assistance model that supplements the regular education program for individual 

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

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

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

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

students account for at least 40 percent of enrollment, are eligible to operate schoolwide 

programs. States also may grant waivers to operate these programs to schools not meeting 

eligibility requirements. In the 2016-2017 school year, States reported that 47,511 schools, or 

80 percent of all Title I schools, operated schoolwide programs, which accounted for 

approximately 96 percent of participating students.

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

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

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

students that provide access to college-level coursework through partnerships with institutions 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

B-10

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

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

engagement.

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

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

standards and aligned assessments, measuring annual student progress, reporting on 

performance, and supporting 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 

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

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

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

least 1 grade in each of 3 grade spans (3-5, 6-9, 10-12). These assessments must be valid and 

reliable, include measures that assess higher-order thinking skills and understanding of 

challenging content, enable achievement results to be disaggregated by major racial and ethnic 

groups, gender, and poverty, disability, English proficiency, and migrant status. States may 

permit LEAs to use State-approved nationally recognized high school assessments in lieu of the 

State’s high school assessments. States must also annually assess the English language 

proficiency of English learners and may administer alternate assessments based on alternate 

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

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

assessed students in the State.

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 systems. These systems must include 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

B-11

interim targets and long-term goals for, at a minimum, student proficiency on State assessments 

and high school graduation rates, for all students and disaggregated by each student subgroup, 

as well as progress in attaining English language proficiency for English learners. In addition, 

State systems must include indicators of: (1) academic achievement based on State 

assessments; (2) for high schools, 4-year adjusted cohort graduation rates; (3) for elementary 

and middle schools, another academic indicator (which may be a measure of student growth); 

(4) progress in achieving English language proficiency; and (5) at least one indicator, of the 

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

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

substantial weight individually and much greater weight in the aggregate than indicators of 

school quality or student success.

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

rates below 67 percent. LEAs, in partnership with stakeholders, must develop and implement 

plans for these schools that, among other things, include evidence-based interventions 

stemming from a needs assessment. The State must also notify LEAs annually of any schools 

with consistently underperforming student subgroups or with subgroups performing as poorly as 

schools in the lowest-performing 5 percent of Title I schools. Similarly, these schools must 

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

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

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

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

be identified by the State for comprehensive support and improvement.1

1 Consistent with the ESSA’s transition provisions, the Department permitted States to delay, until the 2018-2019 

school year, the identification of schools for comprehensive support and improvement and additional schools for 

targeted support and improvement because the schools have student subgroups performing as poorly as schools in 

the lowest-performing 5 percent of Title I schools.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

B-12

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, 

beginning in fiscal year 2018 (the second fiscal year for which the school improvement 

reservation was in effect), 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 families in each LEA, and each formula also includes 

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

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

the poverty line receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (the main Federal-State 

income maintenance program), children in foster homes, and children in local institutions for 

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

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

Part A award to each qualifying LEA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

equal at least 5 percent of the school age population.

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

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

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

and to improve the equity of State funding systems. Once State allocations are determined, suballocations to the LEA level are based on a modified version of the Targeted Grants formula.

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

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

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

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

example, the fiscal year 2019 allocations were based on LEA poverty estimates for 2017. 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 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

B-13

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

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

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

50 percent if it chooses.

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

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

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 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 low-achieving students.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fiscal Year

Basic

Grants

Concentration 

Grants

Targeted

Grants

Education 

Finance

Incentive

Grants Total

2016 ................................ $6,459,401 ......... $1,362,301 $3,544,050 $3,544,050 $14,909,802

2017 ................................ 6,459,401 ....CR 1,362,301 3,819,050 3,819,050 15,459,802

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

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

2020 ................................ 6,459,401 ....CR 1,362,301 4,244,050 4,244,050 16,309,802
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

B-14

FY 2021 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2021, the request would consolidate the Title I Grants to LEAs program into the 

proposed Elementary and Secondary Education for the Disadvantaged Block Grant (ESED 

Block Grant), which would combine nearly all currently funded formula and competitive grant 

programs authorized by the ESEA, as well as several related programs, into a single State 

formula grant program.

ESED Block Grant funds would be allocated to States and LEAs using the Title I formulas, and 

grantees would have discretion to use funds for any authorized purpose of the consolidated 

programs, including activities currently authorized under Title I. In addition, States would 

continue to meet key Title I accountability and reporting requirements aimed at protecting 

students, supporting meaningful school improvement efforts, and giving parents the information 

they need to support a high-quality education for their children. LEAs would develop and submit 

to their States for approval plans consistent with Section 1112 of the ESEA, which requires 

LEAs to monitor student progress in meeting challenging State academic standards, identify 

students at risk of failing to meet those standards, and provide assistance to such students.

For more information on the ESED Block Grant, see the Improving Elementary and Secondary 

Education account.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

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

Output Measures 2019 2020 2021

Allocations by LEA Poverty Rate:

0-15%

0-15% # of LEAs 5,892 6,069 0

0-15% Dollars $2,961,225 $3,219,867 0

0-15% % of Total $ 19.01 20.10 0

0-15% # of Formula Eligible Children 2,151,657 2,193,691 0

0-15% 0-15% $ Per Formula Child $1,376 $1,468 0

15-25%

15-25% # of LEAs 4,336 4,325 0

15-25% Dollars $5,459,263 $6,328,182 0

15-25% % of Total $ 35.05 39.49 0

15-25% # of Formula Eligible Children 3,547,676 3,770,288 0

15-25% 15-25% $ Per Formula Child $1,539 $1,678 0

>25% 

>25% # of LEAs 2,547 2,362 0

>25% Dollars $7,155,646 $6,474,805 0

>25% % of Total $ 45.94 40.41 0

>25% # of Formula Eligible Children 3,962,900 3,478,009 0

>25% >25% $ Per Formula Child $1,806 $1,862 0
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

B-15

Output Measures 2019 2020 2021

LEA Allocation Subtotal $15,576,134 $16,022,854 0

BIA/Outlying Areas 174,403 179,353 0

N&D Program (Part D, Subpart 2) 104,265 102,595 0

Census Updates 5,000 5,000 0

Grants to LEAs Total 15,859,802 16,309,802 0

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information and results based on GPRA 

goals, objectives, measures, and performance targets. Achievement of program results is based 

on the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years as well as the resources 

and efforts invested by those served by this program.

The Department recently revised the measures for Title I Grants to LEAs to assess more 

effectively performance consistent with the reauthorized law. These measures rely on data 

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

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

requirements described in Section 1111(h) of the ESEA. Fiscal year 2017 serves as the 

baseline for the measures, which examine gaps in achievement and graduation rates for 

educationally disadvantaged students. Data for 2019 are expected to be available in fall 2020. 

No targets are shown for 2021 because the program is proposed for consolidation into the 

ESED Block Grant.

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 all students in grades 3-8 scoring at or above 

proficient on State reading assessments.

Year Target Actual

2017 48.0%

2018 52.0% 58.8

2019 56.0

2020 60.0

Additional information: Data for 2017 are reported for 50 of 52 States (including the District of 

Columbia and Puerto Rico); no data are available for Alaska or Tennessee. Data for 2018 are 

reported for 51 States; no data are available for Vermont. Thirty States reported decreasing the 

gap in achievement on reading assessments in 2018. Gap closures for these States averaged 

0.87 percentage points and ranged from 0.07 to 3.60 points.

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 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

B-16

mathematics assessments and the percentage of all students in grades 3-8 scoring at or above 

proficient on State mathematics assessments.

Year Target Actual

2017 46.0%

2018 50.0% 37.3

2019 54.0

2020 58.0

Additional information: Data for 2017 are reported for 50 of 52 States (including the District of 

Columbia and Puerto Rico); no data are available for Alaska or Tennessee. Data for 2018 are 

reported for 51 States; no data are available for Vermont. Nineteen States reported decreasing 

the gap in achievement on math assessments in 2018. Gap closures for these States averaged 

0.93 percentage points and ranged from 0.02 to 4.83 points.

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 all students in grades 3-9 scoring at or above 

proficient on State science assessments.

Year Target Actual

2017 44.7%

2018 48.7% 45.0

2019 52.7

2020 56.7

Additional information: Data for 2017 are reported for 47 States; data are incomplete or 

unavailable from Alaska, California, the District of Columbia, Kansas, and Kentucky. Data for 

2018 are reported for 40 States; data are incomplete or unavailable from California, 

Connecticut, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont; and excluded 

from analysis were Delaware, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, and Missouri due to 

data quality concerns. Eighteen States reported decreasing the gap in achievement on science 

assessments in 2018. Gap closures for these States averaged 1.35 percentage points and 

ranged from 0.08 to 4.52 points.

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

of economically disadvantaged students and the graduation rate of all students.

Year Target Actual

2017 50.0%

2018 54.0% 56.3

2019 58.0

2020 62.0

Additional information: Data for 2017 are reported for 50 States; no data are available for 

Alabama or Puerto Rico. Data for 2018 are reported for 48 States; no data are available for 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

B-17

Alabama, Delaware, Utah, or Puerto Rico. Twenty-seven States reported decreasing the 

graduation rate gap in 2018. Gap closures for these States averaged 1.53 percentage points 

and ranged from 0.04 to 5.85 points.

The Department has also established for this program the following two measures, which focus 

on performance of recently identified CSI schools and for which data are expected to be 

available beginning in fall 2020.

Measure: The percentage of States that increase the percentage of students in CSI schools 

scoring at or above the proficient level on State reading assessments.

Measure: The percentage of States that increase the percentage of students in CSI schools 

scoring at or above the proficient level on State mathematics assessments.

Other Performance Information

The Title I Program at a Glance

In the 2016-2017 school year, the most recent year for which data are available, the Title I 

program served approximately 24.6 million students, or nearly half of the total student 

population. The table below provides information on participation by type of Title I program.

Type of Title I School Number of Schools

Number of Students, in 

millions

Schoolwide program 47,511 23.7

Targeted assistance program 12,232 0.9

Total 59,743 24.6

More detailed information on students in Title I schools, compared to the overall public school 

population, is displayed in the table below.

Student Group

Number of Students,

All Schools

Number of Students,

Title I Schools

Percentage of 

Students,

Title I Schools

All students 50,995,188 24,578,941 48%

American Indian or 

Alaska Native 553,920 364,602 66

Asian or Pacific 

Islander 2,784,100 1,014,056 36

Black 7,759,559 5,349,225 69

Hispanic 13,693,274 9,597,545 70

White 24,366,012 8,111,123 33

Two or more races 1,837,878 843,038 46%

English learners 4,975,045 3,831,530 77

Students with 

disabilities 6,152,428 3,575,761 58
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

B-18

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

Common Core of Data, the Consolidated State Performance Reports, and other collections 

through the Department’s EDFacts system for the 2016-17 school year. The number of students 

in Title I schools for the “all students” group reflects the students served by the program 

(whether through a schoolwide or targeted assistance program); for all other student groups, the 

number of students in Title I schools includes all enrolled students from the group.

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs

In April 2018, the Department released the final report from the Study of Title I Schoolwide and 

Targeted Assistance Programs.1 The study examined how Title I schools are using the flexibility 

offered by the schoolwide program (SWP) option and is based on nationally representative 

surveys of Title I districts and schools (including both SWP and targeted assistance program 

(TAP) schools), as well as interviews and extant data analysis in 35 case study sites. The study 

notably found that SWP schools tended to use Title I funds for a broader array of staff types and 

services than TAP schools and be more involved in decision-making about how to use Title I 

funds. Although reading and math instruction continue to be a major focus for Title I staff in both 

TAP and SWP schools, some case study schools provided examples of more novel uses of 

Title I funds, such as social-emotional supports, digital learning technologies, summer bridge 

programs, and academic enrichment. Other findings from the study include:

• Few principals of SWP schools said that their school consolidated Title I funds with other 

Federal, state, and local funds (6 percent), but a larger proportion (50 percent) indicated that 

they coordinated the use of Title I funds with other funds. Among the case study schools, 

those that reported coordinating the use of Title I funds and other funds often described cofunding staff positions or services in a way that may have a similar practical result as 

consolidating funds.

• The biggest perceived challenge for consolidating Title I funds with other sources was State 

accounting rules that require separate accounting for Federal programs.

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

B-19

Comprehensive literacy development grants

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2021 Authorization: (1) (2)

Budget Authority:

2020 

Appropriation

2021 

Request

Change from 

2020 to 2021

$192,000 0 -$192,000

1 A total of $489,168 thousand is authorized for Part B of Title II in FY 2020. Of the total amount appropriated for 

Title II, Part B, 36.8 percent is authorized for the Comprehensive Literacy Development and Innovative Approaches to 

Literacy Grants programs under Subpart 2.

2 The GEPA extension applies through September 30, 2021.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Comprehensive Literacy Development (CLD) Grants program provides competitive grants 

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

efforts to improve literacy instruction in high-need schools or early childhood 

education programs.

In awarding CLD 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 disadvantaged children, such as children from 

low-income families, children with disabilities, or English learners, and must represent diverse 

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

demonstrated record of providing comprehensive literacy instruction for children aged birth 

through 5. SEAs 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. 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Comprehensive literacy development grants

B-20

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 

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 for CLD Grants 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 reserve up to 5 percent for national 

activities, which includes a national evaluation, technical assistance and training, data 

collection, and reporting.

The CLD Grants program is forward-funded, 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)

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

2017 ........................................................................ 190,000

2018 ........................................................................ 190,000

2019 ........................................................................ 190,000

2020 ........................................................................ 192,000

FY 2021 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2021, the Request would consolidate the CLD program into the proposed 

Elementary and Secondary Education for the Disadvantaged Block Grant (ESED Block Grant), 

which would combine nearly all currently funded formula and competitive grant programs 

authorized by the ESEA, as well as several related programs, into a single State formula 

grant program.

ESED Block Grant funds would be allocated by formula to SEAs and LEAs, which would have 

discretion to use those funds for any authorized purpose of the consolidated programs, 

including the provision of comprehensive, evidence-based literacy instruction. For more 

information on the ESED Block Grant, see the Improving Elementary and Secondary 

Education account.

During initial implementation of the ESED Block Grant, the Department would reserve sufficient 

funds to pay continuation awards to existing CLD grantees through the end of their approved 

project periods.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Comprehensive literacy development grants

B-21

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2019 2020 2021

Funding for new awards $182,940 0 0

Number of new awards 13 0 0

Funding for continuation awards 0 $185,045 $189,006

Number of continuation awards 0 13 13

Peer review of new award applications $196 0 0

Amount for Bureau of Indian Education $950 $950 $960

Amount for Outlying Areas $950 $950 $960

National activities (including evaluation) $4,964 $3,055 $1,074

NOTES: 

The Department carried over fiscal year 2018 funds for this program and used those funds to support a 

2019 competition. Consequently, the Department intends to use fiscal year 2019 funds in fiscal year 2020 and fiscal 

year 2020 funds in fiscal year 2021. Beginning in fiscal year 2022, continuation costs for the 2019 cohort would be 

provided under the ESED Block Grant.

The Department is authorized to reserve up to 0.5 percent of funds appropriated for most ESEA programs, including 

CLD, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA program. While the Department did not reserve funds 

from the CLD program for this purpose in fiscal year 2019, it may do so in fiscal year 2020 or 2021.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

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

and efforts invested by those served by the program. The Department is in the process of 

setting performance targets for fiscal year 2021.

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

B-22

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

oral language skills.

Year Target 2011 Cohort Actual 2017 Cohort Actual

2016 68% 47%

2017 Set a baseline

2018 51%

2019 52

2020 52

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 Striving Readers (for the 2011 cohort) or CLD (for the 

2017 cohort) subgrant program. 

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

on State English language arts assessments.

Year Target 2011 Cohort Actual 2017 Cohort Actual

2016 75% 57%

2017

2018 Set a baseline 42%

2019 43

2020 43

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

participated in the Striving Readers (for the 2011 cohort) or CLD (for the 2017 cohort) program, 

completed pre- and post-assessments, and met or exceeded proficiency levels on the State 

English language arts assessments. 

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

on State English language arts assessments.

Year Target 2011 Cohort Actual 2017 Cohort Actual

2016 76% 55%

2017

2018 Set a baseline 41%

2019 42

2020 42
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Comprehensive literacy development grants

B-23

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

participated in the Striving Readers (for the 2011 cohort) or CLD (for the 2017 cohort) program, 

completed pre- and post-assessments and met or exceeded proficiency levels on the State 

English language arts assessments.

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

on State English language arts assessments.

Year Target 2011 Cohort Actual 2017 Cohort Actual

2016 75% 64%

2017

2018 Set a baseline 38%

2019 39

2020 39

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

participated in the Striving Readers (for the 2011 cohort) or CLD (for the 2017 cohort) program, 

completed pre- and post-assessments, and met or exceeded proficiency levels on the State 

English language arts assessments.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

B-24

Innovative approaches to literacy

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2021 Authorization: (1) (2)

Budget Authority:

2020 

Appropriation

2021 

Request

Change from 

2020 to 2021

$27,000 0 -$27,000

1 A total of $489,168 thousand is authorized for Part B of Title II. Of the total amount appropriated for Title II, Part B, 

36.8 percent is authorized for the Comprehensive Literacy Development and Innovative Approaches to Literacy 

Grants programs under Subpart 2.

2 The GEPA extension applies through September 30, 2021.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

develop the literacy skills of children and adolescents in low-income communities. The program 

may award grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements to local educational agencies (LEAs) in 

which at least 20 percent of the students are from low-income families, the Bureau of Indian 

Education, or eligible national non-profit organizations. Awards typically are for 3 years, and 

grantees may use IAL funds to (1) develop or enhance existing school library programs by 

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

high-need 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 high-quality 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)

2016................................................................................$27,000

2017..................................................................................27,000

2018..................................................................................27,000

2019..................................................................................27,000

2020..................................................................................27,000

FY 2021 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2021, the Request would consolidate the IAL program into the proposed 

Elementary and Secondary Education for the Disadvantaged Block Grant (ESED Block Grant), 

which would combine nearly all currently funded formula and competitive grant programs 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Innovative approaches to literacy

B-25

authorized by the ESEA, as well as several related programs, into a single State formula 

grant program.

ESED Block Grant funds would be allocated by formula to State educational agencies and 

LEAs, which would have discretion to use those funds for any authorized purpose of the 

consolidated programs, including supporting LEAs and schools to develop effective school 

library programs. For more information on the ESED Block Grant, see the Improving Elementary 

and Secondary Education account.

During initial implementation of the ESED Block Grant the Department would reserve sufficient 

funds to pay continuation awards to existing IAL grantees through the end of their approved 

project periods.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2019 2020 2021

Funding for new awards $2,447 0 0

Number of new awards 4 0 0

Funding for continuation awards $24,553 $27,000 0

Number of continuation awards 40 44 0

NOTES: 

The Department is authorized to reserve up to 0.5 percent of funds appropriated for most ESEA programs, including 

IAL, and to pool such funds for use in evaluating any ESEA program. While the Department did not reserve funds 

from the IAL program for this purpose in fiscal year 2019, it may do so in fiscal year 2020.

Continuation costs of approximately $2,446 thousand for projects would be provided under the fiscal year 2021 

request for the ESED Block Grant.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

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

and efforts invested by those served by the program.

The Administration 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

B-26

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

significant gains in oral language skills.

Year Target Actual

2016 70% 76%

2017 70 83

2018 70 70

2019 70 30

2020 50

2021 50

Additional information: Data reported for fiscal year 2019 includes data from some 

2018 grantees reporting for the first time; the Department is currently working 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.

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

2021 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 includes data from some 2018 grantees reporting for the first time; the 

Department is currently working 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.

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

2021 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; the
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Innovative approaches to literacy

B-27

Department is currently working 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.

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

2021 99

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.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

B-28

State agency programs:

Migrant

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2021 Authorization: $374,7511

Budget Authority: 

2020

Appropriation

2021

Request

Change from 

2020 to 2021

$374,751 0 -$374,751

1 The GEPA extension applies through September 30, 2021.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

same academic standards as other children; and (2) to graduate from high school or a high 

school equivalency program with an education that prepares them for responsible citizenship, 

further learning, and productive employment. To help achieve this objective, program services 

help migratory children overcome the educational disruption that results from repeated moves. 

The program statute encourages activities to promote coordination of needed services across 

States and encourages greater access for migratory children to services available under Title I 

Grants to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) and other programs authorized under the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), so that MEP funds can be used for services 

not already available from those programs to meet the unique needs of migrant students. 

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 who made a qualifying move in the previous year and 

children who have dropped out of school 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. Starting in fiscal year 

2020, a hold-harmless provision that assured States at least 90 percent of their prior year

allocations will no longer apply. 

The Department may set aside up to $10 million from the annual MEP appropriation for 

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

academic credit accrual and exchange programs for migrant students. The Department is 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant 

B-29

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 2019 13 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 migrant 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 migrant 

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)

2016......................................................... $374,751

2017...........................................................374,751

2018...........................................................374,751

2019...........................................................374,751

2020...........................................................374,751

FY 2021 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2021, the request would consolidate the Title I Migrant program into the 

proposed Elementary and Secondary Education for the Disadvantaged Block Grant (ESED 

Block Grant), which would combine nearly all currently funded formula and competitive grant 

programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as well as 

several related programs, into a single State formula grant program.

ESED Block Grant funds would be allocated by formula to State educational agencies and local 

educational agencies (LEAs), which would have discretion to use those funds for any authorized 

purpose of the consolidated programs, including activities currently supported by the Title I 

Migrant program. In addition, LEAs would develop and submit to their States for approval plans 

consistent with those currently required by Section 1112 of the ESEA, which includes provisions 

describing how LEAs will meet the needs of migrant students. For more information on the 

ESED Block Grant, see the Improving Elementary and Secondary Education account.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant 

B-30

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2019 2020 2021

Number of eligible children aged 

birth through 21

304,480 304,480 0

SEA program:

SEA program Amount for State grants $364,751 $364,751 0

SEA program Range of State awards 0-$114,386 0-$121,736 0

Coordination activities:

coor dinati on activiti es Consortium incentive grants $3,000 $3,000 0

coor dinati on activiti es Migrant student information 

exchange and related 

coordination activities $7,000 $7,000 0

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

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

the resources and efforts invested by those served by the program. No targets are provided 

for fiscal year 2021 because under the President’s Request no grants would be funded in that 

year.

The Department started collecting data for new grade promotion/graduation and Algebra I 

measures for school year 2016-17, when changes in the MSIX took effect that enabled the 

Department to collect these data. The Department is working with States to ensure that 

accurate and complete data are submitted for these two measures. Once the Department has 

determined that data are accurate and complete it will start report data and establish targets 

for these measures.

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.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant 

B-31

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.

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

2016 44.1% 29.4%

2017 31.4 28.3

2018 33.4 26.0

2019 33.4

2020 33.4

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

2016 47.6% 28.5%

2017 30.5 28.5

2018 32.5 25.4

2019 32.5

2020 32.5

Additional information: The source of the data is the Consolidated State Performance 

Reports that States submit to the Department. States began using more rigorous 

assessments in recent years, which may help explain current low achievement levels. Data for 

2019 will be available in summer 2020.

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 students.

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

Year Target Actual

2016 35 44

2017 43 44

2018 46 46

2019 46

2020 46
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant 

B-32

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. Since the target has been achieved, the Department will work on 

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 report1. 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 agreed that 

MSIX had moderately or substantially improved these other practices. 

• Most State MEP directors considered multiple data sources and factors in determining what 

services to provide or fund for migratory children, including results from the needs 

assessments of migratory children (100 percent of State MEP directors), the amount of MEP 

funding available (98 percent), migratory student outcome data (98 percent), and availability 

of services from other programs.

• More than a third of State MEP grantees directly provided supplemental instructional 

services and other academic supports to migratory children, including college and career 

supports and subject-area instruction. At the local level, 93 percent of local/regional MEP 

subgrantees directly provided supplemental instructional services and academic supports to 

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

Migrant 

B-33

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 fully focus 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 will be used to guide the Department’s future technical 

assistance efforts.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

B-34

Neglected and delinquent

(Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title I, Part D, Subpart 1)

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2021 Authorization: $47,6141

Budget Authority:

2020

Appropriation

2021

Request

Change from 

2020 to 2021

$47,614 0 -$47,614

1 The GEPA extension applies through September 30, 2021.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Title I Neglected and Delinquent (N and D) program provides financial assistance to State 

educational agencies (SEAs) for provision of education services to neglected and delinquent 

children and youth 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.

Like other Title I programs, the N and D program requires institutions receiving funds to gear 

their services to the same college- and career-ready State academic standards that all children 

are expected to meet under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Similar to 

the school-wide program option under the Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies program, 

all juvenile facilities may operate institution-wide education programs in which they use N and D 

program funds in combination with other available Federal and State funds. This option allows 

juvenile institutions to serve a larger proportion of their eligible population and to align their 

programs more closely with other education services in order to meet participants’ educational 

and occupational training needs. States are required to reserve between 15 and 30 percent of 

their allocations for projects to help N and D participants make the transition from State 

institutions to locally operated programs or to support the successful entry of youth offenders 

into postsecondary and career and technical education programs.

The ESEA also authorizes, under Subpart 2 of Part D of Title I, 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 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected and delinquent 

B-35

delinquent 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)

2016...........................................................$47,614

2017.............................................................47,614

2018.............................................................47,614

2019.............................................................47,614

2020.............................................................47,614

FY 2021 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2021, the request would consolidate the Title I Neglected and Delinquent (N and 

D) program into the proposed Elementary and Secondary Education for the Disadvantaged 

Block Grant (ESED Block Grant), which would combine nearly all currently funded formula and 

competitive grant programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

(ESEA), as well as several related programs, into a single State formula grant program.

ESED Block Grant funds would be allocated by formula to State educational agencies and local 

educational agencies (LEAs), which would have discretion to use those funds for any authorized 

purpose of the consolidated programs, including activities currently supported through the N and 

D program. In addition, LEAs would develop and submit to their States for approval plans 

consistent with those currently required by Section 1112 of the ESEA, which includes provisions 

describing how the LEA will meet the needs of neglected and delinquent students. For more 

information on the ESED Block Grant, see the Improving Elementary and Secondary Education 

account.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected and delinquent 

B-36

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2019 2020 2021

Number of participating institutions 682 682 0

Estimated number of students 

served 67,353 67,353 0

Average Federal contribution per 

child (whole dollars) $580 $580 0

Range of awards to States 0-$2,604 0-$2,573 0

Average State award $893 $893 0

Technical assistance $1,190 $1,190 0

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance measures

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

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

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

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

the resources and efforts invested by those served by the program. No targets are provided 

for fiscal year 2021 because under the President’s Request no grants would be funded in that 

year.

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

2016 17.8% 12.9%

2017 18.8 12.5

2018 19.8 13.7

2019 20.8

2020 21.8

Additional information: The source of the data is the Consolidated State Performance Reports 

that States submit to the Department. Data from 2019 will be available in late fall of 2020.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected and delinquent 

B-37

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

school course credits.

Year Target Actual

2016 60.6% 58.5%

2017 61.6 56.0

2018 62.6 52.1

2019 63.6

2020 64.6

Additional information: The source of the data is the Consolidated State Performance Reports 

that States submit to the Department. This measure includes high school course credits earned 

while in the N and D program as well as those earned up to 90 days after exiting the program. 

The measure includes students between the ages of 13 and 21 in neglected, juvenile detention, 

and juvenile correctional institutions, and not students in adult correctional institutions. Data 

from 2019 will be available in late fall of 2020.

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

2016 75.4% 65.6%

2017 76.4 59.6

2018 77.4 64.5

2019 78.4

2020 79.4

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

2016 76.9% 66.7%

2017 77.9 61.1

2018 78.9 67.0

2019 79.9

2020 80.9

Additional information: The source of the data is the Consolidated State Performance Reports 

that States submit to the Department. Student counts are based on the number of long-term 

students (those enrolled in a participating program or facility for 90 or more consecutive 

calendar days) who complete pre- and post-testing in reading and mathematics. These are not 

the same as the State assessments required under ESEA Title I and do not necessarily reflect 

State proficiency levels. A number of factors may have contributed to the variability in

performance for these measures from 2016 to 2018. In particular, States are implementing 

efforts to move students out of institutions and back into communities; consequently, while the 

program may be serving significantly fewer students, these students often had greater academic 

challenges. In addition, several States are implementing ongoing changes to their reporting 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected and delinquent 

B-38

systems and are encountering challenges in moving from paper and pencil to electronic 

systems, as well as with the interoperability of electronic systems within their States. Data from 

2019 will be available in late fall of 2020.

Efficiency measures

Measure: The cost per high school diploma or equivalent.

Year Target Actual

2016 $4,341 $6,337

2017 4,298 6,692

2018 4,255 6,554

2019 4,211

2020 4,170

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. Data from 2019 will be available in late fall of 2020.

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.

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

implemented an institution-wide N and D project.

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 and delinquent 

B-39

• 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, and 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.
B-40

Special programs for migrant students

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2021 Authorization: 01

Budget Authority:

2020

Appropriation

2021

Request

Change from 

2020 to 2021

$45,623 0 -$45,623

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015; no reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2021.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

Special Programs for Migrant Students provide 5-year grants to institutions of higher education 

(IHEs) and private nonprofit organizations to support educational programs designed for 

students who are engaged in, or whose families are engaged in, migrant and other seasonal 

farmwork. 

Projects funded under the High School Equivalency Program (HEP) recruit migrant students 

aged 16 and over and provide academic and support services (including counseling, health 

services, stipends, and placement) to help those students obtain a high school equivalency 

certificate and subsequently to gain employment or admission to a postsecondary institution or 

training program. 

Projects funded by the College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP) provide tutoring, academic 

assistance, and counseling services, as well as stipends, tuition, and room and board, to firstyear undergraduate migrant students and assist those students in obtaining student financial aid 

for their remaining undergraduate years. 

HEP projects, located in college or university settings, operate residential and commuter 

programs of instructional services for out-of-school migrant youth; some HEP projects employ a 

commuter model in which students attend GED classes after work. Most CAMP projects use an 

on-campus residential design and provide a high level of support services in order to assist 

participants, virtually all of whom have had no prior contact with a college campus, to adjust to 

life at an institution of higher education. In making awards under both programs, the Department 

is required to consider applicants' prior experience in operating HEP and CAMP projects. 

The Department may reserve up to one half of 1 percent of the funds appropriated for outreach, 

technical assistance, and professional development activities. If the total amount appropriated is 

below $40 million, the remaining funds are to be distributed between the two programs in the 

same proportion as the amounts available for each program the previous year. If the 

appropriation is over $40 million, 45 percent of the remaining funds must be used for HEP and 

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

quality, and promise of applications received.
B-41

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

Fiscal Years (dollars in thousands)

2016...........................................................$44,623

2017.............................................................44,623

2018.............................................................44,623

2019.............................................................44,623

2020.............................................................45,623

FY 2021 BUDGET REQUEST

For fiscal year 2021, the Request would consolidate the Special Programs for Migrant Students

into the proposed Elementary and Secondary Education for the Disadvantaged Block Grant 

(ESED Block Grant), which would combine nearly all currently funded formula and competitive 

grant programs authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as well as 

related programs such as Special Programs for Migrant Students, into a single State formula 

grant program.

ESED Block Grant funds would be allocated by formula to State and local educational agencies, 

which would have discretion to use those funds for any authorized purpose of the consolidated 

programs, including activities currently supported under HEP. For more information on the 

ESED Block Grant, see the Improving Elementary and Secondary Education account.

States would have flexibility to support CAMP services under the proposed Student Supports 

Block Grant, which would transform the competitive TRIO programs into a single State formula 

grant. For more information on the Student Supports Block Grant, see Federal TRIO Programs 

in the Higher Education Programs account.

Migrant students could also continue to receive services similar to those provided under the 

HEP and CAMP programs under other existing Federal programs, such as the Adult Education 

Basic State Grants program, which provides services to help adults become literate, obtain the 

knowledge and skills necessary for employment and self-sufficiency, obtain a secondary school 

diploma, and transition to postsecondary education and training.

During initial implementation of the ESED Block Grant, the Department would reserve sufficient 

funds to pay continuation awards to current grantees through the end of their approved project 

periods.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2019 2020 2021

Outreach, technical assistance, and 

professional development $222 $228 0

HEP:

HEP Number of students served 4,985 5,500 0

HEP Funding for new awards $7,692 $6,413 0

HEP Number of new awards 17 14 0

HEP Peer review of new award applications $56 $227 0

HEP Average new award $452 $475 0
B-42

Output Measures 2019 2020 2021

HEP Funding for continuation awards $14,584 $16,058 0

HEP Number of continuation awards 32 36 0

HEP Average continuation award $456 $446 0

HEP Average Federal contribution per student 

(whole dollars) $4,469 $4,365 0

CAMP:

CAMP Number of students served 2,429 2,450 0

CAMP Funding for new awards $5,072 $5,702 0

CAMP Number of new awards 12 13 0

CAMP Peer review of new award applications $56 $227 0

CAMP Average new award $423 $418 0

CAMP Funding for continuation awards $16,941 $16,768 0

CAMP Number of continuation awards 41 40 0

CAMP Average continuation award $413 $419 0

CAMP Average Federal contribution per student 

(whole dollars) $9,062 $9,139 0

NOTE: Continuation costs of approximately $14,803 thousand for projects with outstanding continuation 

costs under HEP and $14,759 thousand under CAMP would be provided under the fiscal year 2021 

request for the Elementary and Secondary Education for the Disadvantaged Block Grant. 

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

the cumulative effect of the 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.
B-43

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

2016 69.0% 70.3%

2017 69.0 67.5

2018 69.0 64.9

2019 69.0

2020 69.0

2021 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. Data collected for fiscal 

year 2019 will be available in the summer of 2020.

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

2016 80.0% 78.7%

2017 80.0 85.6

2018 80.0 82.1

2019 80.0

2020 80.0

2021 80.0

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

measure are based on actual placement after receipt of a high school equivalency credential. 

Upgraded employment means a move to a job that provides more hours (and, as a result, 

increased pay); a job with increased benefits; a move to a supervisory position; a move to a new 

job with predefined career ladder, regardless of wage change (for example, becoming a 

management trainee or entering a formal apprenticeship); or a move to a job with higher hourly 

wages or a higher salary. Participants who were unemployed prior to participation in a HEP 

program and who obtain a job after participation and attainment of a high school equivalency 

credential are also included in this measure. Data for 2019 will be available in the summer of 

2020.

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

first academic year of college and in continuing their postsecondary education.

Objective: All CAMP students will complete their first academic year at a postsecondary 

institution in good standing.
B-44

Measure: The percentage of CAMP participants completing the first year of their postsecondary 

program.

Year Target Actual

2016 86.0% 88.1%

2017 86.0 88.2

2018 86.0 83.5

2019 86.0

2020 86.0

2021 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. Data collected 

for fiscal year 2019 will be available in the summer of 2020. 

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

2016 85.0% 96.5%

2017 85.0 96.6

2018 88.0 96.2

2019 90.0

2020 92.0

2021 92.0

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

measure are based on actual placement after completion of the first year of college. Data for 

2019 will be available in the summer of 2020.

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.
B-45

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

2016 $9,509 $8,075

2017 9,931 9,009

2018 10,030 9,408

2019 10,131

2020 10,232

2021 10,334

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

programs.

Year

Target Cost Per Residential 

Participant

Actual Cost Per Residential 

Participant

2016 $18,511 $10,649

2017 19,338 14,036

2018 19,531 13,164

2019 19,727

2020 19,924

2021 20,123

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

2016 $14,984 $10,438

2017 15,653 13,932

2018 15,810 13,650

2019 15,968

2020 16,127

2021 16,289

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. Data for 2019 will be available in the summer of 2020.
B-46

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

2016 $14,314 $10,161

2017 14,958 12,009

2018 15,197 11,393

2019 15,440

2020 15,688

2021 15,939

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

2016 $22,940 $13,279

2017 23,972 14,823

2018 24,356 13,105

2019 24,745

2020 25,141

2021 25,543

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

2016 $17,444 $12,311

2017 18,229 13,765

2018 18,521 12,939

2019 18,817

2020 19,118

2021 19,424

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. Data for 2019 will be available in the summer of 2020.te tabl es