Department of Education

EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Fiscal Year 2018 Budget Request

CONTENTS

Page

Appropriations language .........................................................................................................A-1

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

Appropriation, Adjustments, and Transfers .............................................................................A-5

Summary of Changes .............................................................................................................A-6

Authorizing Legislation............................................................................................................A-7

Appropriations History.............................................................................................................A-9

Significant Items in FY 2017 Appropriations Reports.............................................................A-11

Summary of Request ............................................................................................................A-12

Activities:

Grants to local educational agencies...............................................................................A-14

Comprehensive literacy development grants...................................................................A-26

Innovative approaches to literacy ....................................................................................A-31

State agency programs:

Migrant ......................................................................................................................A-34

Neglected and delinquent..........................................................................................A-40

Special programs for migrant students ............................................................................A-46

State tables1

 

1 State tables reflecting final 2016 allocations and 2017 and 2018 estimates are posted on the 

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

EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

A-1

Appropriation s langu ag e

[Appropriations Language]

For carrying out title I 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"), $16,347,558,000, of which $4,616,122,000 shall become available on July 1, 2018, 

and shall remain available through September 30, 2019, and of which $11,681,898,000 shall 

become available on October 1, 2018, and shall remain available through September 30, 2019, 

for academic year 2018–2019:

1 Provided, That $15,881,458,000 shall be for Part A of title I and 

shall be made available without regard to section 1002(a) of the ESEA:2 Provided further, That 

$6,431,057,000 shall be for basic grants under section 1124 of the ESEA: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, 2018, to obtain annually updated local educational 

agency-level census poverty data from the Bureau of the Census:4 Provided further, That 

$1,362,301,000 shall be for concentration grants under section 1124A of the ESEA:5 Provided 

further, That $3,544,050,000 shall be for targeted grants under section 1125 of the ESEA:6

Provided further, That $3,544,050,000 shall be for education finance incentive grants under 

section 1125A of the ESEA:7 Provided further, That up to $1,000,000,000 shall be for grants to 

local educational agencies to implement weighted per-pupil funding systems through a 

demonstration agreement with the Secretary under Part E of Title I of the ESEA that meets the 

requirements of section 1501(d) of the ESEA and includes an open enrollment system allowing 

students to enroll in a public school selected by their parents:8 Provided further, That the 

Secretary may establish requirements for such grants related to the implementation of open 

enrollment systems:9 Provided further, That notwithstanding section 1501(c)(1) of the ESEA, the 

Secretary may enter into a demonstration agreement with any local educational agency that 

meets the requirement for selection under section 1501(c)(2) of the ESEA:10 Provided further,

That the Secretary may reserve up to $10,000,000 for national activities including technical 
A-2

assistance and information dissemination:11 Provided further, That $44,538,000 shall be for 

carrying out section 418A of the HEA.12

NOTES

A full-year 2017 appropriation for this account was not enacted at the time the budget was prepared; therefore, 

the budget assumes this account is operating under the Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L. 114–254). 

The amounts included for 2017 reflect the annualized level provided by the continuing resolution.

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

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

A-3

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1 ... of which $4,616,122,000 shall become 

available on July 1, 2018, and shall remain 

available through September 30, 2019, and 

of which $11,681,898,000 shall become 

available on October 1, 2018, and shall 

remain available through September 30, 

2019, for academic year 2018–2019:

This language provides for funds to be 

appropriated on a forward-funded basis for 

the Title I Basic Grants, Concentration 

Grants, Targeted Grants, Education Finance 

Incentive Grants, and State Agency Migrant 

and Neglected and Delinquent. The 

language also provides that a portion of the 

funds is available in an advance 

appropriation that becomes available for 

obligation on October 1 of the following fiscal 

year.

2...Provided, That $15,881,458,000 shall be 

for Part A of title I and shall be made 

available without regard to section 1002(a) of 

the ESEA:

This language provides funds for Title I 

grants without regard to the authorization of 

appropriations for those grants.

3...Provided, That $7,431,057,000 shall be 

for basic grants under section 1124 of the 

ESEA:

This language establishes a specific funding 

level for Title I Basic Grants.

4 ...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, 2018, 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.

5 ...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.

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

shall be for targeted grants under section 

1125 of the ESEA:

This language establishes a specific funding 

level for Title I Targeted Grants.

7 ...Provided further, That $3,544,050,000 

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.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

A-4

Language Provision Explanation

8 ...Provided further, That up to 

$1,000,000,000 shall be for grants to local 

educational agencies to implement weighted 

per-pupil funding systems through a 

demonstration agreement with the Secretary 

under Part E of Title I of the ESEA that meets 

the requirements of section 1501(d) of the 

ESEA and includes an open enrollment 

system allowing students to enroll in a public 

school selected by their parents:

This language provides that a maximum of 

$1 billion of the funds for Title I grants may

be used for the proposed Furthering Options 

for Children to Unlock Success (FOCUS) 

program which would support the 

establishment and expansion of systems that 

differentiate funding based on student 

characteristics and allow the funds a student 

generates to follow the student to a school of 

choice.

9 ...Provided further, That the Secretary may 

establish requirements for such grants 

related to the implementation of open 

enrollment systems:

This language authorizes the Secretary to 

establish requirements for open enrollment

systems under the proposed Furthering 

Options for Children to Unlock Success 

(FOCUS) program.

10 ...Provided further, That notwithstanding 

section 1501(c)(1) of the ESEA, the 

Secretary may enter into a demonstration 

agreement with any local educational agency 

that meets the requirement for selection 

under section 1501(c)(2) of the ESEA:

This language overrides the cap limiting 

initial participation in the Flexibility for 

Equitable Per-Pupil Funding authority in 

Title I, Part E to 50 local educational 

agencies.

11 ...Provided further, That the Secretary may 

reserve up to $10,000,000 for national 

activities including technical assistance and 

information dissemination:

This language authorizes the Secretary to 

reserve a maximum of $10 million of the 

funds from the proposed Furthering Options 

for Children to Unlock Success (FOCUS) 

program for national activities.

12 Provided further, That $44,538,000 shall be 

for carrying out section 418A of the HEA.

This language provides specific funding for 

Special Programs for Migrant Students.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

A-5

Appropriation, Adjustments, and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2016

2017

Annualized CR 2018

Discretionary:

Discretionar y Appropriation ............................................ $16,016,790 0 $16,347,558

Discretionar y Annualized CR (P.L. 114-254).................. 0 $15,986,342 0

Discretionar y Total, discretionary appropriation........ 16,016,790 15,986,342 16,347,558

0Discretionar y Comparative transfer from:

Innovation and Improvement for:

Innovative approaches to literacy +27,000 +26,949 0

Total, comparable appropriation 16,043,790 16,013,291 16,347,558

Advance:

Advance for succeeding fiscal year .......... -10,841,177 -10,841,177 -11,681,898

Advance from prior year........................... 10,841,177 10,820,568 10,841,177

Total, budget authority ......................... 16,043,790 15,992,682 15,506,837
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

A-6

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2017 Annualized CR ......................................................................... $16,013,291

2018................................................................................................. 16,347,558

Net change ................................................................ +334,267

Increases:

2017

Annualized CR

Change 

from base

Program:

Increase funding for Title I Grants to LEAs to support 

Furthering Options for Children to Unlock Success 

(FOCUS) grants to local educational agencies to 

implement weighted student funding formulas combined 

with open enrollment systems. $14,881,458 +$1,000,000

Subtotal, increases +1,000,000

Decreases:

2017 

Annualized CR

Change 

from base

Program:

Eliminate funding for School Improvement Programs

because the program is no longer authorized $449,145 -$449,145

Eliminate funding for Comprehensive Literacy 

Development Grants because the program has limited 

impact and duplicates activities that may be supported by 

other Federal, State, or local funds. 189,639 -189,639

Eliminate funding for Innovative Approaches to Literacy

because the program has limited impact and duplicates 

activities that may be supported by other Federal, State, or 

local funds. 26,949 -26,949

Subtotal, decreases -665,733

Net change +334,267
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

A-7

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2017

Authorized

footnote

2017

Annualized CR

2018

Authorized

footnote

2018 Request

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

LEA grants for mulas Basic grants (Section 1124) $15,012,3181$6,431,0571$15,457,4591$6,431,057

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

LEA grants for mulas Targeted grants (Section 1125) (1)3,544,050 (1)3,544,050

LEA grants for mulas Education finance incentive grants (Section 1125A) (1)3,544,050 (1)3,544,050

LEA grants for mulas Furthering options for children to unlock success 

(FOCUS) (ESEA Title I-E)

0 0 0 1,000,000

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

by P.L. 114-95) 0 449,145 0 0

Comprehensive literacy development grants (ESEA-II-B, 

Section 2222) (2) 189,639 (2) 0

Innovative approaches to literacy (ESEA-II-B, 

Section 2226)

(2)

26,949

(2)

0

State agency programs:

Migrant (ESEA I-C) 374,751 374,039 374,751 374,039

Neglected and delinquent (ESEA I-D) 47,614 47,523 47,614 47,523

Special Programs for Migrant Students (HEA IV-A-5) 03 44,538

To be

determined 3 44,538

 

1 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. 2 A total of $468,881 thousand is authorized for Part B of Title II. Of the total amount appropriated for Title II, Part B, 34.1 percent is authorized for Subpart 2 

programs.

3 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2018.

A-7
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Authorizing Legislation—continued

A-8

A-8

Activity

2017

Authorized

footnote

2017

Annualized CR

2018

Authorized

footnote

2018

Request

Total definite authorization $15,434,683 $15,879,824

Total appropriation $16,013,291 $16,347,558

Portion of request subject to reauthorization 44,538
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

A-9

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget 

Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance Footnote

Senate 

Allowance FootnoteAppropriation Footnote

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

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

Recovery Act Supplemental 

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

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

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

2011 15,912,193 15,914,6663 16,726,5792 15,914,666 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2016 16,592,546 14,869,641915,455,802916,016,790

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

2017 $16,043,790 $15,986,79010 $16,093,79010 $16,143,79010

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

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

proceeded in the 110th Congress only through the House Subcommittee and the Senate Committee. 2 The level for the Senate allowance reflects Committee action only.

3 The level for the House allowance reflects the House-passed full-year continuing resolution. 4 The level for appropriation reflects the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 

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

Committee action only.

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

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

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

10 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.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Appropriations History—continued

A-10

Year

Budget 

Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance Footnote

Senate 

Allowance FootnoteAppropriation Footnote

2018 16,347,558

(2018 Advance for 2019) (11,681,898)
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

A-11A-11

Significant Items in FY 2017 Appropriations Reports

Title I National Activities

Explanatory

Statement: There is significant concern about the Department’s allocation of resources 

available through various national activities authorities for pay for success 

projects. While pay for success and other innovative financing mechanisms may 

prove to be a worthy investment, these projects were explicitly authorized under 

the Every Student Succeeds Act only in three instances. However, the 

Department chose to use fiscal year 2016 national activities resources for these 

projects in programs where Congress did not authorize such a use of funds and 

did so without any consultation with the committees of jurisdiction. Therefore, the 

Department is directed to submit to the Committees on Appropriations of the 

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

Workforce in the House of Representatives, and Committee on Health, 

Education, Labor, and Pensions in the Senate operating plans describing in 

detail its planned use of funds for national activities program authorities funded in 

this title not later than 45 days prior to the announcement of the availability of 

funds for such activities. 

Response: The Department will work with the relevant committees to clarify and respond to 

this directive.
ACCOUNT

A-12

A-12

A-12

Click here for accessible version

Summary of R equ est
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

A-13

Summary of Request

A full-year 2017 appropriation was not enacted at the time the FY 2018 Budget was prepared; 

therefore, the Budget assumes the Department is operating under the Further Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2017 (P.L 114–254). The amounts included for 2017 reflect the annualized 

level provided by the continuing resolution. The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 

2017, provided $16.1 billion, an increase of $100 million, or 0.6 percent, more than the 2016 

level for programs in this account.

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

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

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

Act (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The fiscal year 2018

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

requesting a total of $16.3 billion in fiscal year 2017 for the programs in this account. 

The $15.9 billion request ($1 billion more than the 2017 annualized CR level) for Title I Grants to 

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

help to students in high-poverty schools. The request maintains support for the regular Title I 

program while providing resources for the new Furthering Options for Children to Unlock 

Success (FOCUS) grants, which would provide supplemental funding to LEAs that agree to 

adopt weighted student funding systems combined with open enrollment systems that allow 

Federal, State, and local funds to follow students to the public school of their choice.

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

Delinquent programs at the same level as the 2017 annualized CR level, providing $374 million 

for the Migrant program and $47.5 million for the Neglected and Delinquent program. Under 

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

a key change under the reauthorized Neglected and Delinquent program allows local grantees

to use program funds for pay-for-success initiatives. Finally, the request includes $44.5 million 

for Special Programs for Migrant Students, the same amount as 2017 annualized CR level.

The Administration is not requesting funds for Comprehensive literacy development grants and

Innovative Approaches to Literacy because the programs have limited impact and duplicate 

activities that may be supported by other Federal, State, or local funds. Additionally, no funds 

are requested for School improvement programs because the program is no longer authorized.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

A-14

Activities:

Grants to local educational agencies

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

(dollars in thousands, except whole dollar FY 2018 authorization)

FY 2018 Authorization: $15,457,459,042

Budget authority:

Acti vity and period of fund availability

2017

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from

Annualized CR

Basic grants $6,431,057 $6,459,401 $6,431,057 0

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

Targeted grants 3,544,050 3,819,050 3,544,050 0

Education finance 

incentive grants 3,544,050 3,819,050 3,544,050 0

Furthering options for 

children to unlock 

success (FOCUS) 

grants 0 0 1,000,000 +$1,000,000

Total 14,881,458 15,459,802 15,881,458 +1,000,000

Annual appropriation 4,040,281 4,618,625 4,199,560 +159,279

Advance for succeeding 

fiscal year 10,841,177 10,841,177 11,681,898 +840,721

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds 

Act (ESSA), 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 

more than 80 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 in which such students 

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

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

meeting eligibility requirements. In the 2014-2015 school year, States reported that 

45,135 schools, or 83 percent of all Title I schools, operated schoolwide programs, which 

accounted for approximately 96 percent of participating students.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local education agencies

A-15

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 

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. Under the ESSA’s transition provisions, 

responsibilities described under “Standards and Assessments” below generally took effect upon 

the law’s enactment, and those under “Accountability and School Improvement” will take effect 

beginning in the 2017-2018 school year.

Standards and Assessments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

challenging academic content standards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

English learners and may administer alternate assessments based on alternate achievement 

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

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

students in the State.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local education agencies

A-16

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

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

Improvement Programs account).

Accountability and School Improvement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

indicators of school quality or student success.

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, 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 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local education agencies

A-17

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

identified by the State for comprehensive support and improvement.

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

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

and improvement or implementing targeted support and improvement plans. Each State must 

reserve for this purpose the greater of (1) 7 percent of its combined Title I, Part A allocations to 

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

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

Improvement Grants program, except that, beginning in fiscal year 2018 (the second fiscal year 

for which the school improvement reservation is 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 FederalState income maintenance program), children in foster homes, and children in local institutions 

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

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

Part A award to each qualifying LEA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

equal at least 5 percent of the school age population.

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

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

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

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

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

formula.

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

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

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

Grants to local education agencies

A-18

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

example, the fiscal year 2016 allocations were based on LEA poverty estimates for 2014. The 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

50 percent if it chooses.

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

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

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, under the reauthorized ESEA, a State may also reserve 

up to 3 percent of its allocation to make grants to LEAs to carry out direct student services, 

including participation in courses not otherwise available at the student’s school and in 

advanced courses and exams, personalized learning approaches, credit recovery programs, 

and transportation to enable students to attend higher-performing schools.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fiscal Year

Basic

Grants

Concentration 

Grants

Targeted

Grants

Education Finance

Incentive Grants

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

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

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

2016 .................... 6,454,856 1,359,711 3,537,313 3,537,313

2017 .................... 6,459,401 1,362,301 3,819,050 3,819,050
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local education agencies

A-19

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $15.9 billion for Title I Grants to LEAs in fiscal year 2018, an 

increase of $1 billion over the fiscal year 2017 annualized Continuing Resolution level (CR 

level). The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2017, provided $15.5 billion for this 

program. The request maintains support for the regular Title I program while providing 

resources for the new Furthering Options for Children to Unlock Success (FOCUS) grants. The 

request also includes appropriations language overriding the program’s authorized funding 

level.

Furthering Options for Children to Unlock Success (FOCUS) Grants

Providing an initial investment toward the President’s goal of making $20 billion available 

annually to support school choice within the next 10 years, the Administration’s request includes 

appropriations language allowing the Department to use up to $1 billion of the funds for Title I 

Grants to LEAs to support crucially needed, locally driven efforts to make public school choice a 

meaningful reality for more students, especially the poor and minority students that are the 

focus of Title I. The request reflects the Administration’s commitment to placing the power to 

drive effective school reform back in the hands of students and their families and complements 

other new investments in public and private school choice under Charter Schools Grants and 

Education Innovation and Research.

Although the number of LEAs that permit students to attend a school other than their assigned 

school has increased significantly in recent decades, school choice continues to exist for many 

students in name only, if at all. Under the Brookings Institution’s 2016 Education Choice and 

Competition Index—which assigns letter grades to LEAs based on the extent of school choice in 

the LEA, the process by which parents become informed of their options and make choices, the 

degree to which LEA funding and management policies favor the growth of schools frequently 

chosen by families, and the availability to low-income families of transportation and other 

subsidies—only 37, or one-third, of the Nation’s 112 largest LEAs received a grade of C or 

better.

1

 Findings such as this suggest that more can be done to make real school choices 

available to all students. Moreover, persistent achievement gaps for poor and minority students 

demand that we provide more opportunities for students trapped in underperforming schools to 

enroll in high-quality schools capable of meeting their needs.

Recognizing the critical need to improve outcomes for these students, the FOCUS grants would 

support LEAs in establishing or expanding student-centered systems that: (1) differentiate 

funding based on student characteristics, providing disadvantaged students more funding on a 

per-pupil basis than other students; (2) offer a range of viable school options and enable the 

Federal, State, and local funds a student generates to follow him or her to a public school of 

choice; (3) make school performance and funding data easily accessible to parents; and 

(4) empower school leaders to use funds flexibly to address student and community needs. 

Under the Administration’s proposal, LEAs (including consortia of LEAs) that commit to 

 

1 See https://www.brookings.edu/interactives/the-2016-education-choice-and-competition-index/.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local education agencies

A-20

developing and implementing these funding and enrollment systems would be eligible for 

grants, which the Department would administer under the Flexibility for Equitable Per-Pupil 

Funding (Flexibility) authority in Title I, Part E of the ESEA. The Administration’s request 

includes language overriding the statute’s initial cap limiting participation in the Flexibility 

authority to 50 LEAs.

Title I, Part E authorizes the Department to provide flexibility to LEAs to consolidate Federal 

funds together with State and local funds to generate weighted per-pupil allocations, better 

known as weighted student funding (WSF) systems. To receive this flexibility, an LEA must 

agree to allocate a significant portion of its total funding (based on school-level actual personnel 

and nonpersonnel expenditures, including staff salary differentials for years of employment) to 

schools through the WSF system, which must use weights that result in substantially higher perpupil allocations for students from low-income families, English learners, and other 

disadvantaged students identified by the LEA, compared to other students. Under the statute, 

the LEA must ensure that, in its first year of flexibility, each high-poverty school receives more 

per-pupil funding for students from low-income families, and at least as much per-pupil funding 

for English learners, than in the prior year. The Department enters into initial flexibility 

agreements with LEAs for a period of up to 3 years and may waive any ESEA requirement that 

would prevent an LEA from using Federal funds in its system.

The Administration’s proposal would provide grants to LEAs that agree to combine the funding 

flexibility in Title I, Part E with an open enrollment policy. The Department would establish 

minimum requirements for open enrollment systems aimed at maximizing opportunities for all 

students, particularly those from low-income families, to select, attend, and succeed in a highquality public school. Such requirements could include making school information available to 

parents in a clear and timely manner, demonstrating a capacity to enroll students in their 

preferred schools, supporting school integration efforts, arranging or paying for transportation to 

schools of choice, and giving priority to students from low-income families or students in schools 

identified for improvement under Title I. LEAs that meet these requirements and the 

requirements under Title I, Part E would receive grants covering the period of their initial 

flexibility agreements (up to 3 years) and would use grant funds for activities related to 

developing, implementing, and sustaining their funding and enrollment systems, which may 

include temporary payments to individual schools to offset reduced funding due to system 

transition. In determining FOCUS grant award amounts, the Department could establish tiers 

based on LEA student enrollments and give special consideration to applicants proposing to 

serve one or more rural schools or to consortia of LEAs that agree to provide inter-district choice 

to all students.

FOCUS grants would support the adoption by more LEAs of strong open enrollment policies 

such as those implemented by Minneapolis Public Schools, which allows parents to choose any 

school in the LEA upon kindergarten and high school entry and gives priority for seats in certain 

schools to low-income students residing in areas of concentrated poverty. Another example is 

the Hartford Region Open Choice Program, which allows students to move among schools in 

Hartford and surrounding suburban LEAs, with transportation provided to Hartford students at 

no cost. Funds could also help replicate rigorous parent information activities and simplified 

school selection processes, such as the comprehensive Choices and Enrollment website of the 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local education agencies

A-21

New York City Department of Education and the common application for traditional and charter 

schools used in the District of Columbia.

Consistent with requirements in Title I, Part E, the Department would use funds pooled for 

evaluation under section 8601 of the ESEA to evaluate FOCUS grant implementation, including 

its impact on the equitable distribution of funding, the demographic distribution of students, the 

availability of public school choice options, and student achievement and other academic 

outcomes, such as high school graduation rates. To assist grantees in implementing their 

projects, the Administration’s request includes appropriations language permitting the 

Department to reserve up to $10 million for national activities including technical assistance and 

information dissemination.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

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

Output Measures 2016 2017 2018

Allocations by LEA Poverty Rate:

0-15%

0-15% # of LEAs 4,975 5,289 5,289

0-15% Dollars $1,964,097 $2,282,145 $2,183,023

0-15% % of Total $ 13.41 15.04 14.93

0-15% # of Formula Eligible Children 1,786,596 1,898,984 1,898,984

0-15% 0-15% $ Per Formula Child $1,099 $1,202 $1,150

15-25%

15-25% # of LEAs 4,665 4,470 4,470

15-25% Dollars $4,357,489 $4,704,705 $4,526,409

15-25% % of Total $ 29.76 31.00 30.96

15-25% # of Formula Eligible Children 3,611,594 3,608,961 3,608,961

15-25% 15-25% $ Per Formula Child $1,207 $1,304 $1,254

>25% 

>25% # of LEAs 3,407 3,083 3,083

>25% Dollars $8,321,022 $8,187,357 $7,912,638

>25% % of Total $ 56.83 53.96 54.11

>25% # of Formula Eligible Children 5,906,751 5,312,936 5,312,936

>25% >25% $ Per Formula Child $1,409 $1,541 $1,489

LEA Allocation Subtotal $14,642,608 $15,174,207 $14,622,070

BIA/Outlying Areas 149,058 170,003 148,765

N&D Program (Part D, Subpart 2) 114,152 110,592 105,623

Census Updates 3,984 5,000 5,000

FOCUS grants 0 0 1,000,000

Grants to LEAs Total 14,909,802 15,459,802 15,881,458
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local education agencies

A-22

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

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 and those requested 

in FY 2018 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those served by 

this program.

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

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

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

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

The 2016 data for these measures are expected to be available in summer 2017.

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

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

mathematics.

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

above the proficient level on State reading assessments.

Year

Target Percentage of 

Students Who Score At or 

Above Proficiency

Actual Percentage of 

Students Who Score At or 

Above Proficiency

2013 94.4% 54.5%

2014 100.0 54.1

2015 100.0 39.4

2016 100.0

2017 100.0

2018 100.0
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local education agencies

A-23

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

above the proficient level on State mathematics assessments.

Year

Target Percentage of 

Students Who Score At or 

Above Proficiency

Actual Percentage of 

Students Who Score At or 

Above Proficiency

2013 94.0 51.9

2014 100.0 51.1

2015 100.0 35.0

2016 100.0

2017 100.0

2018 100.0

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

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

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

assessments.

Year

Target Gap in Proficiency 

Percentage Between 

Economically Disadvantaged 

Students and All Students

Actual Gap in Proficiency 

Percentage Between 

Economically Disadvantaged 

Students and All Students

2013 1.6% 11.1%

2014 0.0 10.7

2015 0.0 13.0

2016 0.0

2017 0.0

2018 0.0

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

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

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

mathematics assessments.

Year

Target Gap in Proficiency 

Percentage Between 

Economically Disadvantaged 

Students and All Students

Actual Gap in Proficiency 

Percentage Between 

Economically Disadvantaged 

Students and All Students

2013 1.6% 11.0%

2014 0.0 11.1

2015 0.0 12.4

2016 0.0

2017 0.0

2018 0.0
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local education agencies

A-24

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

the goal of 100 percent student proficiency in reading and mathematics by 2014 under the 

ESEA, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act. The Department is considering how best 

to revise the targets based on States’ goals under the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, and 

actual performance.

The decreases in the percentage of economically disadvantaged students scoring at or above 

the proficient level and the increases in the proficiency gap for these students in 2015 can be 

explained, in part, by States’ transition to more rigorous assessments based on college- and 

career-ready standards. 

Other Performance Information

The Title I Program at a Glance

In the 2014-2015 school year, the most recent year for which complete data are available, the 

Title I program served approximately 25 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 # of Schools # of Students, in millions

Schoolwide program 45,135 24.1

Targeted assistance program 9,503 1.0

Total 54,638 25.1

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

population, is displayed in the table below.

Student Group

# of Students,

All Schools

# of Students,

Title I Schools

% of Students,

Title I Schools

All students 50,732,995 25,094,990 49%

American Indian or 

Alaska Native 566,846 367,045 65

Asian or Pacific 

Islander 2,666,919 960,046 36

Black 7,813,913 5,342,364 68

Hispanic 13,178,197 9,118,283 69

White 24,897,175 8,377,799 34

Two or more races 1,609,945 702,356 44

Eligible for free lunch 22,554,732 16,292,508 72

English learners 4,825,906 3,809,746 79

Students with 

disabilities 5,956,494 3,416,069 57

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

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

collections through the Department’s EDFacts system for the 2014-15 school year. The number 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local education agencies

A-25

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. 

National Assessment of Title I: Final Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

implementation of NCLB provisions concerning accountability and school improvement. Both 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

weighting used within the Targeted Grants and Education Finance Incentive Grants formulas.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

A-26

Comprehensive literacy development grants

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

FY 2018 Authorization: (1)

Budget Authority:

2017

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from

Annualized CR

$189,639 $190,000 0 -$189,639

1

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

Title II, Part B, 34.1 percent is authorized for the Comprehensive Literacy Development and Innovative 

Approaches to Literacy Grants programs under Subpart 2.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Comprehensive Literacy Development Grants program, the successor to the Striving 

Readers Comprehensive Literacy (SRCL) 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 Comprehensive Literacy Development Grants, the Department gives priority to 

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

must use at least 95 percent of its allocation to make competitive subgrants to one or more local 

educational agencies (LEAs) or, for the purposes of providing early literacy services, to one or 

more early childhood education program. 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. 

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 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Comprehensive literacy development grants

A-27

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

classroom instruction and practice.

Of the amount appropriated for Comprehensive Literacy Development grants, 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.

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

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

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

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

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

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

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration’s fiscal year 2018 request does not include funding for Comprehensive 

Literacy Development Grants because of the program’s limited impact and duplication of 

activities that may be supported by other Federal, State, or local funds. The Department of 

Education Appropriations Act, 2017, provided $190 million for this program.

The Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies program provides nearly $15 billion to more 

than 14,000 school districts that may be used to support effective, evidence-based reading 

instruction. By comparison, the last cohort of Striving Readers grants served only six States 

and just a handful of districts in each State. Moreover, a 2015 study by the Institute of 

Education Sciences indicated that 60 percent of the interventions implemented by the 2006 and 

2009 cohorts had no discernible effects on reading achievement (Boulay & Goodson, 2015). 

States or school districts that want to test or expand the use of evidence-based literacy 

instruction may seek funding under the Education Innovation and Research (EIR) program 

(under Innovation and Improvement), which provides grant awards for scaling up effective 

practices. EIR grants are comparable in size to those available through the Comprehensive 

Literacy Development Grants program.

The Department anticipates making six awards under its fiscal year 2017 SRCL competition 

that, due to the availability of an estimated $380 million in combined fiscal year 2016 and fiscal 

year 2017 funds, would be fully funded for the life of the proposed project periods and thus 

would entail no continuation costs in fiscal year 2018 or beyond. The Department plans to 

conduct a rigorous evaluation of selected grantees to identify effective practices and maximize 

the impact of the investment in this final cohort by disseminating those practices widely.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Comprehensive literacy development grants

A-28

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016

2017

Annualized CR 2018

Funding for new awards 0 $362,461 0

Number of new awards 0 6 0

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

Amount for Bureau of Indian Education 0 $1,898 0

Amount for Outlying Areas 0 $1,898 0

National activities (including evaluation) 0 $11,482 0

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

including Comprehensive Literacy Development. For fiscal year 2017, the Department may reserve a portion of 

National Activities funds for this purpose.

The 2016 funds for this program were carried over for use in 2017. The amounts available from 2016 and 2017 will 

be used to fund one competition in 2017.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

This section presents selected program performance information results based on goals, 

objectives, measures, and targets required by the Government Performance and Results Act. 

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 is in the process of setting targets for the 2017 cohort of grantees.

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

students from birth through grade 12, including English learners and students with disabilities.

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

oral language skills.

Year Target Actual

2014 68% 63%

2015 68 61

2016 68 47

2017

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 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Comprehensive literacy development grants

A-29

varying assessments. Four-year-old children who are eligible for testing are children in early 

childhood education classrooms participating in a Striving Readers subgrant program. The 

Department is not including performance targets for 2018 because the 2018 request would 

eliminate this program.

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

on State English language arts assessments.

Year Target Actual

2014 75% 77%

2015 75 72

2016 75 57

2017

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

participated in the Striving Readers program, completed pre- and post-assessments, and met or 

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

is not including performance targets for 2018 because the 2018 request would eliminate this 

program.

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

on State English language arts assessments.

Year Target Actual

2014 76% 71%

2015 76 60

2016 76 55

2017

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

participated in the Striving Readers program, completed pre- and post-assessments and met or 

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

is not including performance targets for 2018 because the 2018 request would eliminate 

this program.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Comprehensive literacy development grants

A-30

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

on State English language arts assessments.

Year Target Actual

2014 75% 65%

2015 75 62

2016 75 64

2017

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

participated in the Striving Readers program, completed pre- and post-assessments and met or 

exceeded proficiency levels on the State English language arts assessments. For 2016, the 

reported percentage does not include data from one State. The Department is not including 

performance targets for 2018 because the 2018 request would eliminate this program.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

A-31

Innovative approaches to literacy

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: (1)

Budget Authority:

2017

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from

Annualized CR

$26,949 $27,000 0 -$26,949

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

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

Grants programs under Subpart 2.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The 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 (1) one or more local educational 

agencies in which at least 20 percent of the students are from low-income families, (2) the 

Bureau of Indian Education, or (3) eligible national non-profit organizations. Grantees may use 

IAL funds to develop or enhance existing school library programs by providing professional 

learning opportunities to school librarians or refreshing library materials in high-need schools; 

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 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)

2013.............................................................. .................$27,567

2014.............................................................. ...................24,538

2015.............................................................. ...................23,109

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

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

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration’s fiscal year 2018 request eliminates funding for IAL because it has limited 

impact and duplicates activities that may be supported with other Federal, State, local, or private 

funding sources. The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2017, provided $27 million 

for this program. The roughly 14,000 school districts and 55,000 schools that participate in the 

nearly $15 billion Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies program may support the full 

range of IAL-type activities as part of their Title I schoolwide programs and, in some cases 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Innovative approaches to literacy

A-32

Targeted Assistance projects. The current cohort of IAL grantees will complete its projects in 

2017, so eliminating the program in 2018 would not impact funding for any current grantees.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016

2017

Annualized CR 2018

Funding for new awards $26,365 0 0

Number of new awards 31 0 0

Funding for continuation awards $430 $26,949 0

Number of continuation awards 2 31 0

Peer review of new award applications $205 0 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 Administration established the following performance measures for grantees under this 

program:

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

significant gains in oral language skills.

Year Target Actual

2014 70% 70%

2015 70 76

2016 70 76

2017 70

Measure: The percentage of participating 3rd-grade students who meet or exceed proficiency 

on State reading or language arts assessments.

Year Target Actual

2014 70% 52%

2015 70 46

2016 70

2017 70
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Innovative approaches to literacy

A-33

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

on State reading or language arts assessments.

Year Target Actual

2014 70% 53%

2015 70 61

2016 70

2017 70

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

on State reading or language arts assessments.

Year Target Actual

2014 70% 61%

2015 70 55

2016 70

2017 70

Note that grantees were required to report only on measures applicable to the populations 

served, and, therefore, not all grantees reported on each performance measure. 2016 data for 

all measures will be available later in spring 2017. The Department is not including 

performance targets for 2018 because the 2018 request would eliminate this program.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

A-34

State ag en cy programs:

Migrant

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: $374,751

Budget Authority: 

2017

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from

Annualized CR

$374,039 $374,751 $374,039 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

residence due to economic necessity and (1) involves crossing school district boundaries; (2) is 

made in order to obtain, or resulted in, temporary or seasonal work in agriculture or fishing; and 

(3) was made in the preceding 36 months. 

The Every Student Succeeds Act reauthorized the ESEA and made several changes to the 

MEP, including revising the allocation formula to use current data; more clearly defining student 

eligibility (e.g., including moves that result in obtaining agricultural work even if that was not the 

original purpose of the move); and clarifying that migratory children who made a qualifying move 

in the previous year and children who have dropped out of school should receive priority for 

services under the program. 

Funds are allocated through a statutory formula based on each State’s per-pupil expenditure for 

education, its average count of eligible migratory students aged 3 through 21 residing within the 

State in the preceding 3 years, and its count of students who received services in summer or 

intersession programs provided by the State during the previous year. Under a hold-harmless 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant 

A-35

provision, States are assured at least 90 percent of their previous years’ allocations for fiscal 

years 2017 through 2019.

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

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

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

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

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

arrangements. By law, the Department may reserve up to $3 million a year from coordination 

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

The statute requires the Department to assist States in developing effective methods for the 

electronic transfer of migrant student records. The Department developed the Migrant Student 

Information Exchange System (MSIX) to enable States to exchange migrant student data 

records efficiently and expeditiously and provide an accurate, unduplicated count of the number 

of migrant students on a national and Statewide basis.

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

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

following year.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were: 

Fiscal year (dollars in thousands)

2013.........................................................$372,751

2014...........................................................374,751

2015...........................................................374,751

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

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

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

For 2018, the Administration requests $374.0 million for the Title I Migrant program, the same 

amount as the fiscal year 2017 annualized Continuing Resolution level (CR level). The 

Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2017, provided $374.8 million for this program. 

The fiscal year 2018 appropriation would continue to support activities that identify highly mobile 

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

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

Migrant students represent an especially disadvantaged, hard-to-serve group due to multiple 

risk factors. In particular, the high mobility of these children across school districts and State 

boundaries (sometimes within the school term or year) means that, in general, no single school 

district or State has ongoing responsibility for the education of these students, thus creating a 

need for Federal support to assist in the coordination of services to meet their educational 

needs. The high mobility also creates additional challenges for both students and the school 

systems serving them, such as the need for additional supports to students to overcome the 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant 

A-36

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

high school graduation.

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

that go well beyond services traditionally supported with State and local education budgets. In 

addition to being highly mobile, migrant students tend to live in poverty, have limited English 

proficiency, and belong to families that are likely to experience food and job insecurity and poor 

health and housing conditions. Of the children and youth eligible to receive services under the 

program during school year 2015-2016, 30.8 percent had moved within the previous 12 months. 

In addition, 38.8 percent of eligible children and youth were English learners and 7 percent of 

eligible children and youth were eligible to receive services under the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act.

Migrant children and youth may also help their families perform agricultural work, and a growing 

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

work in the fields and in processing plants. A significant proportion of migrant individuals 

eligible for services under the program (9.7 percent of the eligible population in 2015-2016) are 

school-aged youth who do not attend school. 

In the 2015-16 school year, 312,695 children were identified as eligible under the program, and 

States and local entities provided services to 216,489 migrant students during the regular 

school year and 95,728 during the summer or intersessions. Program funds supported 

3,107 projects that operated during the school day, 506 projects that provided an extended 

school day during the regular school year, 141 summer or intersession projects, and 324 yearround projects. The program served 3,310 children aged birth through 2; 15,778 children aged 

3 through 5; 185,118 children and youth in kindergarten through grade 12; and 12,283 out-ofschool youth. Services provided included supplemental instruction in reading, math, and other 

academic areas, family literacy and preschool instruction, and high school credit accrual. 

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

nutrition services, advocacy and referrals for migrant students with disabilities, and (especially in 

the summer) transportation. The Department expects to support a similar level of services 

using fiscal year 2018 funds. 

The Department would reserve approximately $10 million from the fiscal year 2018 

appropriation for migrant coordination and national activities, including $3 million for consortium 

incentive grants. The remainder of the funds would be used for activities related to inter- and 

intra-State coordination, primarily for maintenance and operation of the Migrant Student 

Exchange System (MSIX), including for technical assistance to States as they continue to 

implement their systems for collecting and exchanging data on migrant students.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant 

A-37

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016 2017 2018

Number of eligible children 316,473 316,473 316,473

SEA program:

SEA program Amount for State grants $364,751 $364,039 $364,039

SEA program Range of State awards 0-$128,658 $78-$115,792 $78-$115,567

Coordination activities:

coor dinati on acti viti es Consortium incentive grants $3,000 $3,000 $3,000

coor dinati on acti viti es Migrant student information 

exchange and related 

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

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in FY 2018

and future years, and the resources and efforts invested by those served by this program. 

In 2014, the Department adopted new performance measures focused on student 

performance and attainment in reading/language arts and mathematics; student success in 

progressing through school; and success in Algebra, a critical subject for helping students 

attain high school diplomas and enroll in postsecondary education or training. Specific 

measures include: (1) the percentage of migrant students in grades 3-8 who scored at the 

proficient level or above in reading/language arts assessments; (2) the percentage of migrant 

students in grades 3-8 who scored at the proficient level or above in mathematics 

assessments; (3) the percentage of migrant students in grades 7-12 who graduated from high 

school or were promoted to the next grade level; and (4) the percentage of migrant students

who entered the 11th grade who had received full for credit for taking Algebra I. 

The Department will start collecting data for the grade promotion/graduation and Algebra I 

measures in school year 2016-17, when changes in the MSIX take effect that will enable the 

Department to collect these data.

Goal: To assist all migrant students in meeting challenging academic standards and 

achieving graduation from high school (or a high school equivalency credential program) 

with an education that prepares them for responsible citizenship, further learning, and 

productive employment.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant 

A-38

Objective: Along with other Federal programs and State and local reform efforts, the Migrant 

Education Program will contribute to improved school performance of migrant children.

Measure: The percentage of migrant students in grades 3-8 who scored at the proficient level 

or above on reading/language arts assessments.

Year Target Percentage Actual Percentage

2014 44.1% 49.6%

2015 44.1 27.8

2016 44.1

2017 31.4

2018 33.4

Measure: The percentage of migrant students in grades 3-8 who scored at the proficient level 

or above on mathematics assessments.

Year Target Percentage Actual Percentage

2014 47.6% 49.5% 

2015 47.6 26.2

2016 47.6

2017 30.5

2018 32.5

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

Reports that States submit to the Department. States made changes to their standards and 

assessments systems to comply with the requirements that assessments be based on 

college- and career-ready standards by school year 2014-15, resulting in more rigorous 

assessments. For that reason, the Department reset the target for 2017 based on the 

performance for school year 2015-16. Data for 2016 will be available in summer 2017.

Efficiency Measures

The Department established an efficiency measure associated with the transfer of migrant 

student records through the MSIX system. The MSIX integrates procedures designed to 

achieve efficiencies and cost reductions by linking separate State and local efforts to transfer 

health and education records into a single system that can be used within and across all States. 

Initially the Department assessed annual changes in the percentage of actively migrating 

students for which MSIX contained consolidated records that reflect a complete history of school 

and health information. As of 2012, MSIX contains consolidated records for migrant students 

who have enrolled in school in more than one State. The Department is now tracking how many 

States are collecting the three types of data elements collected in MSIX for migrant students: 

basic student information, student assessment data, and credit accrual information for 

secondary students.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant 

A-39

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

Year Target Actual

2013 Baseline 31

2014 31 34

2015 31 36

2016 35

2017 43

2018 46

Additional information: At the end of fiscal year 2015, 36 out of 47 States participating in the 

migrant education program were collecting all the types of data elements collected in 

MSIX. The Department developed a three-phase plan to help States fully participate in 

MSIX. Under phase one, States were to collect and make available all data elements for basic 

student information, which is required for all migrant students. Under phase two, States would 

add student assessment data, which is required only for migrant students taking State 

assessments. Under phase three, States would add credit accrual information for secondary 

students. At the time that targets were established, State participation in MSIX was 

voluntary. On May 10, 2016, final regulations for the MEP were published in the Federal 

Register. These regulations became effective June 9, 2016. Because the Department issued 

regulations requiring States to collect and share data through MSIX, targets were adjusted to 

reflect the expectation that all 46 States participating in the MEP would collect all three types of 

data elements by 2018.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

A-40

Neglected and delinquent

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: $47,614

Budget Authority: 

2017

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from

Annualized CR

$47,523 $47,614 $47,523 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

children and youth in State-run institutions, attending community day programs, and in 

correctional facilities. Funds are allocated to States through a formula based on the number of 

children in State-operated institutions and per-pupil education expenditures for the State. Each 

State’s N and D allocation is generated by child counts in State institutions that provide at least 

20 hours of instruction a week from non-Federal funds; adult correctional institutions must 

provide 15 hours a week. State institutions serving children with an average length of stay of at 

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

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

The N and D program is authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as 

reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act. Major changes to the program under the 

reauthorization include emphasizing the attainment of regular high school diplomas as the 

preferred program outcome; improving transitions for youth between correctional facilities and 

local education programs and schools, particularly to provide for educational continuity, to 

ensure credit accrual, and to support the successful completion of high school and pathways 

into postsecondary education and the workforce; expanding the program to better include 

students served by the Bureau of Indian Education or tribal schools; focusing on the unique 

needs of children who have interacted with both the child welfare system and the justice system; 

and allowing local programs to use funds for pay-for-success initiatives. 

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

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

are expected to meet under the ESEA. Similar to the school-wide program option under the 

Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies program, all juvenile facilities may operate 

institution-wide education programs in which they use N and D program funds in combination 

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

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

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

States are required to reserve between 15 and 30 percent of their allocations for projects to help 

N and D participants make the transition from State institutions to locally operated programs or 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected and delinquent 

A-41

to support the successful entry of youth offenders into postsecondary and career and technical 

education programs.

Subpart 2 of Part D of Title I authorizes a companion program that provides funding for local 

educational agencies (LEAs). From funds reserved by the State from its allocation under Title I, 

Part A, an SEA awards subgrants to eligible LEAs with high numbers or percentages of children 

and youth in locally operated 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. The SEA has 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)

2013...........................................................$47,614

2014.............................................................47,614

2015.............................................................47,614

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

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

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

For 2018, the Administration requests $47.5 million, the same as the fiscal year 2017

annualized Continuing Resolution level (CR level), for the Neglected and Delinquent (N and D) 

program. The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2017, provided $47.6 million for this 

program. The activities supported with this funding would help N and D students return to and 

complete school and obtain employment after they are released from State institutions.

The population served by the N and D program is extremely disadvantaged and isolated. 

Research has shown that the youth served are up to 3 years behind in grade level and generally 

lack job skills. A study by Harris, Baltodano, Bal, Jolivette, and Malcahy (2009) of youth 

incarcerated in three long-term correctional facilities found low levels of reading achievement 

among this population, with significantly lower levels for certain ethnic and racial groups and for 

students in special education. Overall, the youth in the study performed approximately one 

standard deviation below the mean in standardized reading tests; scores for students receiving 

special education services were between one and two standard deviations from the mean. This 

problem was documented as early as 1996, when a study from the Educational Testing Service 

showed that while most of the inmates in America’s prisons would eventually be paroled, twothirds did not have the literacy skills needed to function in society. The findings of these reports 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected and delinquent 

A-42

show the importance of programs focused on improving educational outcomes for neglected 

and delinquent youth and preparing these students for further education or to enter the 

workforce. 

Furthermore, a large number of youth in correctional settings are students with disabilities. The 

2013 count of students with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 

showed that over 15,000 children and youth served under that program were in correctional 

settings. In addition, for school year 2014-15, grantees under the N and D program reported 

that over 23,000 youth served in State-operated juvenile detention and correction facilities and 

over 66,000 youth served in locally operated juvenile detention and correction facilities were 

students with disabilities. The overrepresentation of students with disabilities poses additional 

challenges for institutions who serve these students, who require additional support and 

attention to be successful in school and beyond.

With few exceptions, young people served by N and D grantees will reenter our communities, 

schools, and postsecondary institutions. High-quality education in correctional institutions can 

help equip them with the skills needed to successfully reenter their communities and either 

continue their education or join the workforce.1 In short, educating these youth is crucial for 

reducing re-incarceration rates, supporting their future success, and strengthening communities. 

In order to support States’ implementation of new requirements under ESEA reauthorization, in 

December 2016, the Department supported development by the National Technical Assistance 

Center for the Education of Neglected and Delinquent Children and Youth of technical 

assistance materials to assist State and local leaders provide transition assistance to help 

justice-involved youth make a successful transition back to traditional school settings in

December of 2016.

2

 These materials build on the Department’s previous work with the 

Department of Justice that focused on reducing the number of youth who enter the juvenile 

justice system and improving the quality of the services provided in residential and secure 

facilities. 

In 2018, the Department would reserve approximately $1.2 million to continue to provide 

technical assistance and other services through the National Evaluation and Technical 

Assistance Center for Children who are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk. Center activities 

include: (1) developing a national model for evaluating the effectiveness of N and D programs; 

(2) collecting and disseminating information on tools and effective practices that can be used to 

support N and D youth; and (3) providing technical assistance, using experts and practitioners, 

to State agencies.

 1 Lois M. Davis et al., “How Effective Is Correctional Education, and Where Do We Go from Here? The Results of a 

Comprehensive Evaluation” (2014); Lois M. Davis et al., “Evaluating the Effectiveness of Correctional Education: A 

Meta-Analysis of Programs That Provide Education to Incarcerated Adults” (2013). 2 https://www2.ed.gov/students/prep/juvenile-justice-transition/transition-toolkit-3.pdf
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected and delinquent 

A-43

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016 2017 2018

Number of participating institutions 673 673 673

Estimated number of students 

served 79,084 79,084 79,084

Average Federal contribution per 

child (whole dollars) $587 $586 $586

Range of awards to States 0-$2,771 0-$3,427 0-$3,420

Average State award $893 $891 $891

National activities $1,190 $1,190 $1,190

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance measures

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

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

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

cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in FY 2018 

and future years, and the resources and efforts invested by those served by this program. 

Goal: To ensure that neglected and delinquent children and youth will have the 

opportunity to meet the challenging State standards needed to further their education 

and become productive members of society.

Objective: Neglected or delinquent students will improve academic and vocational skills 

needed to further their education.

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

2013 14.8% 14.9%

2014 15.8 13.3

2015 16.8 11.4

2016 17.8

2017 18.8

2018 19.8

Additional information: The Department revised the performance targets in 2013 to better 

align with recent performance. Data from 2016 will be available in July 2017.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected and delinquent 

A-44

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

school course credits.

Year Target Actual

2013 57.6% 58.1%

2014 58.6 53.2

2015 59.6 53.9

2016 60.6

2017 61.6

2018 62.6

Additional information: This measure includes students between the ages of 13 and 21 in 

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

correctional institutions. A number of factors may have contributed to the decreases in 

performance for these measures from 2013 to 2014. 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 

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. The 

Department revised the performance targets in 2013 to better align with recent performance. 

Data from 2016 will be available in July 2017.

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

2013 72.4% 64.4%

2014 73.4 67.8

2015 74.4 65.6

2016 75.4

2017 76.4

2018 77.4

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

2013 73.9% 65.4%

2014 74.9 68.6

2015 75.9 66.6

2016 76.9

2017 77.9

2018 78.9

Additional information: Student counts are based on the number of long-term students (those 

enrolled in a participating program or facility for 90 or more consecutive calendar days) who 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected and delinquent 

A-45

complete pre- and post-testing in reading and mathematics. These are not the same as the 

State assessments required under ESEA Title I and do not necessarily reflect State proficiency 

levels. The Department revised the performance targets in 2013 to better align with recent 

performance. A number of factors may have contributed to the decreases in performance for 

these measures from 2014 to 2015. 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 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. The Department revised the 

performance targets in 2013 to better align with recent performance. Data from 2016 will be 

available in July 2017.

In 2016, the Department began an implementation evaluation of the N and D program to study 

educational services provided to children and youth in State and local juvenile justice and child 

welfare facilities and institutions. The study will conduct 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 institution-wide N and D projects, and how grantees 

assess the educational outcomes of participating students. The final report is due at the end of 

calendar year 2017 and will be used to inform continuous program improvement, increase the 

research base, and improve outcomes for students served by this and other similar education 

programs.

Efficiency measures

Measure: The cost per high school diploma or equivalent.

Year Target Actual

2013 $4,475 $4,873

2014 4,430 5,283

2015 4,386 6,431

2016 4,341

2017 4,298

2018 4,255

Additional information: This measure attempts to determine program cost efficiency by 

tracking the ratio of the number of participating students achieving a high school diploma or its 

equivalent to the cost of the program. The increase in cost for 2015 may be due to decreases in 

the number of students served under the program. The Department revised the performance 

targets in 2013 to better align with recent performance. Data from 2016 will be available in July 

2017.
A-46

Special programs for migrant students

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2018 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority: 

2017

Annualized CR

2017

Appropriation 2018

Change from

Annualized CR

$44,538 $44,623,000 $44,538 0

1

The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 

2018.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

farmwork. 

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

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

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

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

training program. 

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

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

for their remaining undergraduate years. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

projects. 

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

Programs for Migrant Students for outreach, technical assistance, and professional 

development activities. If the total amount appropriated is below $40 million, the remaining 

funds are to be distributed between the two programs in the same proportion as the amounts 

available for each program the previous year. If the appropriation is over $40 million, 45 percent 
A-47

of the remaining funds must be used for HEP and 45 percent for CAMP, and the remainder may 

be used for either program, based on the number, quality, and promise of applications received.

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

Fiscal Years (dollars in thousands)

2013...........................................................$34,623

2014.............................................................34,623

2015.............................................................37,474

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

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

FY 2018 BUDGET REQUEST

For 2018, the Administration requests a total of $44.5 million for the Special Programs for 

Migrant Students, the same as the fiscal year 2017 annualized Continuing Resolution level 

(CR level). The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2017, provided $44.6 million for 

this program. The request would support continued implementation of programs that have 

demonstrated success in helping migrant youth who are particularly at risk for poor educational, 

employment, and earnings outcomes. 

Data from a 2016 US Department of Labor research report (Findings from the National 

Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 2011-12: A Demographic and Employment Profile of 

United States Farmworkers) show that a significant proportion of farmworkers tend to be young, 

poorly educated, unlikely to be proficient in English, and poor. In 2011-12, individuals aged

14-21 constituted 11 percent of farmworkers; average educational attainment was 8th-grade; 

only 33 percent of respondents said they could speak English well; and 30 percent of 

farmworkers had family incomes below the poverty level. However, a sizable group of survey 

respondents seem interested in pursuing further education or training; 34 percent of 

farmworkers surveyed reported having taken at least one adult education class. Among the 

most common classes respondents attended were English, job training, and high school 

equivalency classes; however, their limited education and income affects their ability to pursue 

postsecondary education or obtain skilled work that pays higher wages. 

Not only are many agricultural workers very young, but a large number of migrant youth are 

living on their own or do not attend school. State educational agencies reported that 9.7 percent 

of the population eligible to receive services under the Migrant Education program authorized 

under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (30,436 youths in school year 2015-16) 

were school-aged youth who do not attend school. 

The HEP and CAMP programs provide participants with assistance that can enable them to 

improve their earnings potential dramatically. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

“Occupational Outlook Handbook,” 2016-17 Edition, the median hourly wage for agricultural 

workers in 2015 was $9.66, and these types of workers are often paid based on how much they 

do instead of how many hours they work. By comparison, the National Center for Education 

Statistics reports in “The Condition of Education 2016” that in 2014, the median earnings for fulltime, full-year wage and salary workers aged 25-34 with a high school diploma or equivalent 

were $30,000 (equivalent to $14.42 per hour) and the median was $35,000 for a person with an 

associate’s degree (equivalent to $16.83 per hour). Furthermore, the “Occupational Outlook 
A-48

Handbook” indicates that periods of unemployment between jobs can cause stress for migrant 

and seasonal farmworkers, and agricultural work can be dangerous due to risk of exposure to 

pesticides or working with farm machinery that can cause serious injuries. Agricultural workers 

frequently leave the occupation due to the intense physical nature of the work, but, because of 

their poor education and lack of resources, these workers are likely to need support to pursue 

educational opportunities that would allow them to obtain other jobs. 

HEP and CAMP programs focus on finding and assisting migrant youth who have not been able 

to complete high school or go on to postsecondary education due to limited or inconsistent 

educational opportunity. HEP and CAMP projects emphasize services to out-of-school-youth 

and other eligible individuals by conducting extensive outreach in locations where these youth 

live and work (e.g., farms, production facilities, and labor camps) and providing services at 

locations and times that meet the needs of an out-of-school, working population. Program 

performance data show that the programs’ academic and support services are successful at 

helping participants attain their high school equivalency credentials or complete their first 

academic year in a postsecondary program. Program outcomes compare favorably with 

outcomes for the general population. For example, 96.7 percent of the CAMP participants who 

completed their first academic year in a postsecondary program continued their postsecondary 

education. In contrast, data from the National Center of Education Statistics’ “The Condition of 

Education 2016” show that the retention rate of first-time degree/certificate-seeking 

undergraduates at 4-year institutions was 80 percent from 2013 to 2014, and 61 percent at 

2-year institutions during the same period.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2016 2017

Annualized CR 2018

Outreach, technical 

assistance, and 

professional development $223 $223 $223

HEP:

HEP Number of students served 5,950 5,355 5,712

HEP Funding for new awards $6,929 $1,498 0

HEP Number of new awards 16 3-5 0

HEP Peer review of new award 

applications $75 $75 0

HEP Average new grant award $433 $440 0

HEP Funding for continuation 

awards $15,684 $20,585 $22,157

HEP Number of continuation 

awards 34 45 48

HEP Average Federal contribution 

per student (whole dollars) $3,797 $3,694 $3,900

Output Measures 2016 2017

Annualized CR 2018

CAMP:
A-49

Output Measures 2016 2017

Annualized CR 2018

CAMP Number of students served 2,444 2,350 2,538

CAMP Funding for new awards $7,264 $4,641 0

CAMP Number of new awards 18 6-11 0

CAMP Peer review of new award 

applications $75 $75 0

CAMP Average new grant award $404 423 0

CAMP Funding for continuation 

awards $14,373 $17,441 $22,158

CAMP Number of continuation 

awards 34 44 54

CAMP Average Federal contribution 

per student (whole dollars) $8,884 $9,429 $8,730

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 results is based on the 

cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those requested in FY 2018 

and future years, and the resources and efforts invested by those served by this program. 

Goal: To assist migrant and seasonal farmworker students in obtaining the equivalent of 

a high school diploma, and, subsequently, in beginning postsecondary education, 

entering military service, or obtaining employment.

Objective: An increasing percentage of HEP participants will receive their high school 

equivalency credential.

Measure: The percentage of HEP participants receiving a high school equivalency credential.

Year Target Actual

2013 69.0% 74.5%

2014 69.0 66.6

2015 69.0 42.6

2016 69.0

2017 69.0

2018 69.0

Additional information: The source of data is grantee performance reports. Over the last 5 

years, changes to State academic standards for elementary and secondary education have 

driven changes to adult education standards and high school equivalency assessments that 

have made such assessments more challenging. However, since these changes have been 

associated with fluctuation in student performance during this transition period, current 

performance targets are static. The changes in standards have also led to HEP projects having 
A-50

to redesign their curricula and professional development. Data collected for fiscal year 2016 will 

be available in the summer of 2017. 

Objective: An increasing percentage of HEP recipients of a high school equivalency credential 

will enter postsecondary education programs, upgraded employment, or the military.

Measure: The percentage of HEP high school equivalency credential recipients who enter 

postsecondary educational programs, career positions, or the military.

Year Target Actual

2013 80.0% 80.1%

2014 80.0 79.9

2015 80.0 78.2

2016 80.0

2017 80.0

2018 80.0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

credential are also included in this measure. The Department is providing technical assistance 

to grantees on collecting data on program participants after they are no longer receiving 

program services. Data for 2016 will be available in the summer of 2017.

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

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

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

institution in good standing.

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

postsecondary program.

Year Target Actual

2013 86.0% 85.1%

2014 86.0 86.7

2015 86.0 84.5

2016 86.0

2017 86.0

2018 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 
A-51

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 year of the project. Data collected 

for fiscal year 2016 will be available in the summer of 2017. 

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

2013 85.0% 95.0%

2014 85.0 96.2

2015 85.0 96.7

2016 85.0

2017 85.0

2018 88.0

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

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

Department is providing technical assistance to grantees on collecting data on program 

participants once the participants are no longer receiving program services. Data for 2016 will 

be available in the summer of 2017. 

Efficiency measures

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

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

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

postsecondary education and then continues that postsecondary education.

HEP Efficiency Measures

Measure: Cost per participant earning a GED, commuter programs.

Year

Target Cost Per Participant

Earning a GED

Actual Cost Per Participant

Earning a GED

2013 $8,306 $5,409

2014 8,718 5,985

2015 9,104 12,882

2016 9,509

2017 9,931

2018 10,030
A-52

Measure: Cost per participant earning a GED, residential programs.

Year

Target Cost Per Participant

Earning a GED

Actual Cost Per Participant

Earning a GED

2013 $16,195 $9,667

2014 16,962 12,750

2015 17,719 22,847

2016 18,511

2017 19,338

Measure: Cost per participant earning a GED, programs with both commuting and resident 

students.

Year

Target Cost Per Participant

Earning a GED

Actual Cost Per Participant

Earning a GED

2013 $13,104 $7,589

2014 13,732 7,433

2015 14,344 15,377

2016 14,984

2017 15,653

2018 15,810
A-53

CAMP Efficiency Measures

Measure: Cost per participant completing the first year of postsecondary education and 

continuing postsecondary education, commuter programs.

Year

Target Cost Per Participant

Completing the First Year of 

Postsecondary Education 

and Continuing 

Postsecondary Education

Actual Cost Per Participant

Completing the First Year of 

Postsecondary Education and 

Continuing Postsecondary 

Education

2013 $12,543 $10,686

2014 13,107 10,170

2015 13,697 10,326

2016 14,314

2017 14,958

2018 15,197

Measure: Cost per participant completing the first year of postsecondary education and 

continuing postsecondary education, residential programs.

Year

Target Cost Per Participant

Completing the First Year of 

Postsecondary Education 

and Continuing 

Postsecondary Education

Actual Cost Per Participant

Completing the First Year of 

Postsecondary Education and 

Continuing Postsecondary 

Education

2013 $20,102 $14,534

2014 21,007 12,521

2015 21,952 12,354

2016 22,940

2017 23,972

2018 24,356

Measure: Cost per participant completing the first year of postsecondary education and 

continuing postsecondary education, programs with both commuting and resident students.

Year

Target Cost Per Participant

Completing the First Year of 

Postsecondary Education 

and Continuing 

Postsecondary Education

Actual Cost Per Participant

Completing the First Year of 

Postsecondary Education and 

Continuing Postsecondary 

Education

2013 $15,286 $10,701

2014 15,974 11,512

2015 16,693 11,503

2016 17,444

2017 18,229

2018 18,521

Additional information: The Department established different costs for programs serving 

participants who commute, programs serving participants who reside at the institution of higher 
A-54

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. Costs for HEP programs increased, in part, due to substantial increases 

in costs for GED testing, along with the decrease in the number of HEP participants receiving a 

high school equivalency credential. Data for 2016 will be available in the summer of 2017.