Department of Education

EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Fiscal Year 2020 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 2019 Appropriations Reports.............................................................A-11

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

Activities:

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

Student-centered funding incentive grants........................................................................ A-25

Comprehensive literacy development grants .................................................................... A-28

Innovative approaches to literacy...................................................................................... A-33

State agency programs:

Migrant......................................................................................................................... A-36

Neglected and delinquent............................................................................................. A-42

Special programs for migrant students ............................................................................. A-49

State Tables*

State tables reflecting final 2018 allocations and 2019 and 2020 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

Appropriations Language

For carrying out title I [and subpart 2 of part B of title II] of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965 (referred to in this Act as "ESEA") and section 418A of the Higher 

Education Act of 1965 (referred to in this Act as “HEA”), [$16,543,790,000]$16,376,790,000, of 

which [$5,625,990,000]$4,595,269,000 shall become available on July 1, [2019]2020, and shall 

remain available through September 30, [2020]2021, and of which [$10,841,177,000]

$11,681,898,000 shall become available on October 1, [2019]2020, and shall remain available 

through September 30, [2020]2021, for academic year [2019–2020]2020-2021:

1 Provided, That 

$6,459,401,000 shall be for basic grants under section 1124 of the ESEA:2 Provided further,

That up to $5,000,000 of these funds shall be available to the Secretary of Education (referred 

to in this title as "Secretary") on October 1, [2018]2019, to obtain annually updated local 

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

That $1,362,301,000 shall be for concentration grants under section 1124A of the ESEA:4

Provided further, That $4,019,050,000 shall be for targeted grants under section 1125 of the 

ESEA:5 Provided further, That $4,019,050,000 shall be for education finance incentive grants 

under section 1125A of the ESEA:

6

[Provided further, That $217,000,000 shall be for carrying 

out subpart 2 of part B of title II: ]

7 Provided further, That $50,000,000 shall be for 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:8 Provided further, That 

$44,623,000 shall be for carrying out section 418A of the HEA:

9 Provided further, That, 

notwithstanding section 1003A(a)(1)(A) of the ESEA, a State educational agency may reserve 

not more than 5 percent of the amount such State educational agency receives under Part A of 

Title I to carry out section 1003A of the ESEA.10 (Department of Education Appropriations Act, 

2019.)
A-2

NOTE

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

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

A-3

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1 ... of which [$5,625,990,000] 

$4,595,269,000 shall become available on 

July 1, [2019]2020, and shall remain 

available through September 30, [2020]2021, 

and of which [$10,841,177,000] 

$11,681,898,000 shall become available on 

October 1, [2019]2020, and shall remain 

available through September 30, [2020]2021, 

for academic year [2019–2020]2020-2021:

This language provides for funds to be 

appropriated on a forward-funded basis for 

the Title I Basic Grants, Concentration 

Grants, Targeted Grants, Education Finance 

Incentive Grants, funding for demonstration 

agreements tied to weighted per-pupil 

funding, State Agency Migrant and Neglected 

and Delinquent, and Special Programs for 

Migrant Students. The language also 

provides that a portion of the funds is 

available in an advance appropriation that 

becomes available for obligation on 

October 1 of the following fiscal year.

2...Provided, That $6,459,401,000 shall be 

for basic grants under section 1124 of the 

ESEA:

This language establishes a specific funding 

level for Title I Basic Grants.

3 ...Provided further, That up to $5,000,000 of 

these funds shall be available to the 

Secretary of Education (referred to in this title 

as ‘‘Secretary’’) on October 1, [2018] 2019, to 

obtain annually updated local educational 

agency-level census poverty data from the 

Bureau of the Census:

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

funds to support continued work by the 

Census Bureau to update LEA-level poverty 

data.

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

shall be for concentration grants under 

section 1124A of the ESEA:

This language establishes a specific funding 

level for Title I Concentration Grants.

5 ...Provided further, That $4,019,050,000

shall be for targeted grants under section 

1125 of the ESEA:

This language establishes a specific funding 

level for Title I Targeted Grants.

6 ...Provided further, That $4,019,050,000

shall be for education finance incentive 

grants under section 1125A of the ESEA:

This language establishes a specific funding 

level for Title I Education Finance Incentive 

Grants.

7 ...[Provided further, That $217,000,000 

shall be for carrying out subpart 2 of part B of 

title II:]

This language provides funding for 

Comprehensive literacy development grants 

and Innovative approaches to literacy. It is 

deleted because no funding is requested for 

those programs. 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

A-4

Language Provision Explanation

8 ...Provided further, That $50,000,000 shall 

be for 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:

This language would authorize funding to 

support grants for activities related to refining 

and implementing student-centered funding 

systems for local educational agencies with 

flexibility agreements under Title I, Part E of 

the ESEA.

9 ...Provided further, That $44,623,000 shall 

be for carrying out section 418A of the HEA.9

This language provides funding for Special 

Programs for Migrant Students.

10 ...Provided further, That, notwithstanding 

section 1003A(a)(1)(A) of the ESEA, a State 

educational agency may reserve not more 

than 5 percent of the amount such State 

educational agency receives under Part A of 

Title I to carry out section 1003A of the 

ESEA.

This language would override the authorizing 

statute by raising the maximum percentage 

of Title I funds that SEAs may reserve to 

carry out section 1003A from 3 percent to 

5 percent.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

A-5

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2018 2019 2020

Discretionary:

Discretionar y Appropriation .......................................................... $16,443,790 $16,543,790 $16,376,790

Total, discretionary appropriation....................... 16,443,790 16,543,790 16,376,790

Advance:

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

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

Total, budget authority ....................................... 16,443,790 16,543,790 15,536,069
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

A-6

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2019.................................................................................................. $16,543,790

2020................................................................................................. 16,376,790 

Net change ................................................................ -167,000

Increases: 2019 base

Change 

from base

Program:

Provide funding to support new grants for activities related 

to refining and implementing student-centered funding 

systems for local educational agencies with flexibility 

agreements under Title I, Part E of the ESEA.

0 +$50,000

Subtotal, increases +50,000

Decreases: 2019 base

Change 

from base

Program:

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. $190,000 -190,000

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. 27,000 -27,000

Subtotal, decreases -217,000

Net change -167,000
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

A-7

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity 2019

Authorized

footnote 2019

Estimate

2020

Authorized

footnote 2020 

Request

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

LEA grants formulas: $15,897,371 $16,182,345

LEA grants for mulas Basic grants (Section 1124) (1)$6,459,401 (1)$6,459,401

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)4,019,050 (1)3,819,050

LEA grants for mulas Education finance incentive grants (Section 1125A) (1)4,019,050 (1)3,819,050

Student-centered funding incentive grants

(Proposed legislation) 0 0

To be 

determined 

2

50,000,000

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

(3)

190,000

(3)

0

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

Section 2226)

(3)

27,000

(3)

0

State agency programs:

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

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

Special Programs for Migrant Students (HEA IV-A-5) 0

4

 44,623

To be 

determined4 44,623

 

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

Authorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2020.

3

For Part B of Title II, a total of $469,168 thousand is authorized for fiscal year 2019, and $489,168 thousand is authorized for fiscal year 2020. Of the total 

amount appropriated for Title II, Part B, 34.1 percent is authorized in fiscal year 2019 and 38.9 percent is authorized in fiscal year 2020 for Subpart 2 programs.

4

The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015. Reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2020.

A-7A-7A-7
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Authorizing Legislation—continued

A-8

A-8

Activity 2019

Authorized

footnote 2019

Estimate

2020

Authorized

footnote 2020 

Request

Total definite authorization 0 $16,604,710

Total appropriation $16,543,790 $16,376,790

Portion of request subject to reauthorization 44,623

A-8
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

A-9

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance Footnote

Senate 

Allowance Footnote AppropriationFootnote

2011 15,912,193 15,914,6661 16,726,5792 15,914,666 3

(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 15,949,3194 15,741,7034 15,741,703

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

2013 15,558,649 15,208,151515,840,1035 14,921,636

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

2014 15,683,649 N/A615,875,231115,552,693

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

2015 15,377,965 N/A615,566,226715,536,107

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

2016 16,592,546 14,869,641

8

15,455,802816,016,790

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

2017 16,043,790 15,986,790916,066,790916,143,7909

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

2018 16,347,558 15,953,79010 16,169,19810 16,107,78110

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

 

1

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

2

The level for the Senate allowance reflects Committee action only.

3

The level for appropriation reflects the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 

(P.L. 112-10).

4

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

Committee action only.

5

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.

6

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

7

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

8

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.

9

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.

10 The level for the House allowance reflects floor action on the Omnibus appropriations bill; the Senate allowance 

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

Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141).
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Appropriations History—continued

A-10

Year

Budget Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance Footnote

Senate 

Allowance Footnote AppropriationFootnote

2019 $15,926,790 $16,443,79011 $16,568,79011 $16,543,79011

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

2020 16,376,790

(2020 Advance for 2021) (11,681,898)

 

11 The levels for the House and Senate Allowance reflect Committee action on the regular annual 2019 

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

Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019 (P.L. 115-245).
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

A-11A-11

Significant Items in FY 2019 Appropriations Reports

Grants to LEAs

Senate: The Committee directs the Department to make publicly available on its website 

a request from a State Education Agency to waive the 1-percent alternate 

assessment cap under section 1111(b)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act and its implementing regulations at 34 CFR 200.6(c) 

and the Department’s response to any such request.

Response: ED continues to post all responses to waiver requests in our website, at

https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplan17/waivers/index.html, and 

will post the requests on the Department’s website in the near future. 

Innovative Approaches to Literacy

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

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

effective school library programs, which may include providing professional 

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

schools. Further, the Committee continues to direct the Department to ensure 

that grants are distributed among eligible entities that will serve geographically 

diverse areas, including rural areas.

Response: In fiscal year 2018, the Department awarded more than 90 percent of funds 

available for IAL to grantees that are developing or enhancing effective school 

library programs in high-need schools in diverse geographic areas across 16 

States. Fiscal year 2019 funds will support continuation awards for the 2018 

cohort of IAL grantees.
A-12

A-12

A-12

Summary of R equest

Click here for accessible version

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2020 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET

(in thousands of dollars)

Amount Percent

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

(a) Basic grants (section 1124)

Annual appropriation D 4,918,625 5,018,625 4,177,904 (840,721) -16.75%

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 1,540,776 1,440,776 2,281,497 840,721 58.35%

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

(b) Concentration grants (section 1124A)

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

(c) Targeted grants (section 1125)

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 3,969,050 4,019,050 4,019,050 0 0.00%

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

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 3,969,050 4,019,050 4,019,050 0 0.00%

Subtotal, Grants to LEAs 15,759,802 15,859,802 15,859,802 0 0.00%

Annual appropriation D 4,918,625 5,018,625 4,177,904 (840,721) -16.75%

Advance for succeeding fiscal year 1 D 10,841,177 10,841,177 11,681,898 840,721 7.75%

 2. Student-centered funding incentive grants (proposed legislation) D 0 0 50,000 50,000 ---

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

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

 5. State agency programs:

(a) Migrant (ESEA I-C) D 374,751 374,751 374,751 0 0.00%

(b) Neglected and delinquent (ESEA I-D) D 47,614 47,614 47,614 0 0.00%

Subtotal, State agency programs 422,365 422,365 422,365 0 0.00%

 6. Special programs for migrant students (HEA IV-A-5) D 44,623 44,623 44,623 0 0.00%

 D 16,443,790 16,543,790 16,376,790 (167,000) -1.01%

Total, Budget authority D 16,443,790 16,543,790 15,536,069 (1,007,721) -6.09%

Current 5,602,613 5,702,613 4,694,892 (1,007,721) -17.67%

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

NOTES: D = discretionary program; M = mandatory program

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

1

 The amount for Advance for succeeding fiscal year in the 2020 President's Budget column is increased to account for the proposed elimination of advances in Supporting Effective 

Instruction State Grants in the School Improvement Programs account.

Education for the Disadvantaged

Total, Appropriation 

Cat 

Code

2018 

Appropriation 

2019 

Appropriation

2020 

President's 

Budget

2020 President's Budget Compared 

to 2019 Appropriation
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

A-13A-13

A-13

Summary of Request

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

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

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

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

requesting a total of $16.4 billion in fiscal year 2020 for the programs in this account.

The $15.9 billion request 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 as well as 

full State and local implementation of the reauthorized ESEA based on approved consolidated 

State plans.

The request includes $50 million for the proposed Student-Centered Funding Incentive grants, 

which are intended to spur LEAs to participate in flexibility agreements under Title I, Part E of 

the ESEA by supporting activities related to refining and implementing weighted student funding 

systems.

The request would also provide $374.7 million for the State agency Migrant program and 

$47.6 million for the State agency Neglected and Delinquent program. These programs serve 

students, who, by definition, are not educated by a single school district. The Migrant program 

serves students who move across school districts, and the Neglected and Delinquent program 

serves students who are educated in institutional settings or correctional facilities and will likely 

transition to local school systems.

Finally, the request includes $44.6 million for Special Programs for Migrant Students; which 

funds projects designed to help migrant individuals attain a high school equivalency diploma or 

get through their first year of college.

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.
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)

FY 2020 Authorization: $16,182,345

Budget authority:

Acti vity and period of fund availability 2019 2020 Change

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

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

Targeted grants 4,019,050 4,019,050 0

Education finance incentive grants 4,019,050 4,019,050 0

Total 15,859,802 15,859,802 0

Annual appropriation 5,018,625 4,177,904 0

Advance for succeeding fiscal year 10,841,177 11,681,898 0

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

students in high-poverty schools meet challenging State academic standards. The program 

serves an estimated 25 million students in nearly 90 percent of school districts and nearly 

60 percent of all public schools.

Title I schools help students reach challenging State standards through one of two models: a 

targeted assistance model that supplements the regular education program for individual 

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

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

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

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

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

programs; under the reauthorized ESEA, States also may grant waivers to operate these 

programs to schools not meeting eligibility requirements. In the 2016-2017 school year, States 

reported that 47,511 schools, or 80 percent of all Title I schools, operated schoolwide programs, 

which accounted for approximately 96 percent of participating students.

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

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

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

students that provide access to college-level coursework through partnerships with institutions 

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.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

A-15

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

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

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

performance, and supporting school improvement.

Standards and Assessments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

challenging academic content standards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

learners and may administer alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards 

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

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

State.

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

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

Improvement Programs account).

Accountability and School Improvement

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

for performance through State-determined accountability systems. These systems must include 

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 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

A-16

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 

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

identified by the State for comprehensive support and improvement.1

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

or competitive basis to LEAs to support schools identified for comprehensive support and 

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

 

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

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

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

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

Grants to local educational agencies

A-17

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 was in effect), the amount a State reserves may 

not result in a decrease in the amount of Title I funds each of its LEAs receives compared to the 

previous fiscal year.

Allocations

Title I, Part A funds are allocated through four separate formulas. All four formulas are based 

on the number of children from low-income families in each LEA, and each formula also 

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

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

above the poverty line receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (the main 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 

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

example, the fiscal year 2018 allocations were based on LEA poverty estimates for 2015. The 

Department transfers approximately $5 million from the annual Title I appropriation to the 

Census Bureau to finance the preparation of these LEA poverty estimates.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

A-18

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, a State may also reserve up to 3 percent of its 

allocation to make grants to LEAs to carry out direct student services, including participation in 

courses not otherwise available at the student’s school and in advanced courses and exams, 

personalized learning approaches, credit recovery programs, and transportation to enable 

students to attend higher-performing public schools, including charter schools. In making 

grants, States must give priority to LEAs with the highest percentage of schools identified for 

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

services for students in such schools prior to serving other low-achieving students.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fiscal Year

Basic

Grants

Concentration 

Grants

Targeted

Grants

Education 

Finance

Incentive

Grants Total

2015 ................................ $6,459,401 .......................... $1,362,301 $3,294,050 $3,294,050 $14,409,802

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

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

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

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

Grants to local educational agencies

A-19

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $15.9 billion for Title I Grants to LEAs in fiscal year 2020, the same 

as the fiscal year 2019 appropriation. The request maintains strong support for the Title I 

program, which is the linchpin of the ESEA and reflects the longstanding Federal role of 

providing extra academic support to our Nation’s economically disadvantaged students in order 

to close achievement gaps. LEAs can use Title I funds flexibly for locally determined programs 

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

allow Federal and other funds to be consolidated and leveraged for comprehensive school 

reforms. 

The request includes appropriations language increasing from 3 percent to 5 percent the 

maximum amount that States are permitted to reserve for Direct Student Services under 

section 1003A of the ESEA. Increasing the size of this reservation would provide States and 

LEAs with greater flexibility to support innovative services for students and enhance public 

school choice options, including ensuring that disadvantaged students in low-performing 

schools have the opportunity to transfer to other, higher-performing schools. For example, this 

funding can be used by LEAs to provide transportation to public schools of choice and expand 

access to rigorous coursework and career and technical education opportunities for students 

enrolled in schools where such opportunities otherwise are unavailable. This increased 

reservation, together with investments in charter schools and magnet schools, is intended to 

support the Administration’s goal of ensuring that all students, including disadvantaged 

students, are empowered to obtain a personalized education that meets their individual needs.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

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

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

Allocations by LEA Poverty Rate:

0-15%

0-15% # of LEAs 5,597 5,895 5,895

0-15% Dollars $2,581,948 $2,955,311 $2,949,636

0-15% % of Total $ 16.69 18.97 18.94

0-15% # of Formula Eligible Children 1,985,428 2,146,177 2,146,177

0-15% 0-15% $ Per Formula Child $1,300 $1,377 $1,374

15-25%

15-25% # of LEAs 4,430 4,349 4,349

15-25% Dollars $5,406,961 $5,457,674 $5,454,251

15-25% % of Total $ 34.94 35.04 35.01

15-25% # of Formula Eligible Children 3,757,962 3,547,081 3,547,081

15-25% 15-25% $ Per Formula Child $1,439 $1,539 $1,538
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

A-20

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

>25% 

>25% # of LEAs 2,800 2,532 2,532

>25% Dollars $7,485,422 $7,161,918 $7,173,401

>25% % of Total $ 48.37 45.99 46.05

>25% # of Formula Eligible Children 4,450,026 3,968,829 3,968,829

>25% >25% $ Per Formula Child $1,682 $1,805 $1,807

LEA Allocation Subtotal $15,474,331 $15,574,903 $15,577,288

BIA/Outlying Areas 173,303 174,403 174,403

N&D Program (Part D, Subpart 2) 107,168 105,496 103,111

Census Updates 5,000 5,000 5,000

Grants to LEAs Total 15,759,802 15,859,802 15,859,802

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 and those requested 

in fiscal year 2020 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested by those 

served by this program.

The performance measures for Title I Grants to LEAs shown below were developed prior to 

reauthorization of the ESEA; in particular, they reflect the role of the 100 percent proficiency 

goals established by the No Child Left Behind Act in assessing program performance. These 

measures rely on data submitted annually through the ESEA Consolidated State Performance 

Reports, which include State and local performance information primarily as specified through 

the annual “report card” requirements described in Section 1111(h) of the ESEA. The 

Department is revising the measures for Title I Grants to LEAs to assess more effectively 

performance consistent with the reauthorized law and will begin reporting on the revised 

measures beginning with the fiscal year 2021 President’s Budget. 

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.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

A-21

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

2015 100.0% 39.4%

2016 100.0 40.2

2017 100.0 39.6

2018 100.0

2019 100.0

2020 100.0

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

2015 100.0% 35.0%

2016 100.0 36.7

2017 100.0 37.0

2018 100.0

2019 100.0

2020 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

2015 0.0% 13.0%

2016 0.0 12.8

2017 0.0 12.5

2018 0.0

2019 0.0

2020 0.0
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

A-22

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

2015 0.0% 12.4%

2016 0.0 12.5

2017 0.0 12.2

2018 0.0

2019 0.0

2020 0.0

Additional information: Two States (Alaska and Tennessee) did not submit data for these 

measures for 2016.

Other Performance Information

The Title I Program at a Glance

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

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

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

Type of Title I School Number of Schools

Number of Students, in 

millions

Schoolwide program 47,511 23.7

Targeted assistance program 12,232 0.9

Total 59,743 24.6
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

A-23

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

population, is displayed in the table below.

Student Group

Number of Students,

All Schools

Number of Students,

Title I Schools

Percentage of Students,

Title I Schools

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

American Indian or 

Alaska Native 553,920 364,602 66

Asian or Pacific 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Students with 

disabilities 6,152,428 3,575,761 58

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

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

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

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

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

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

Study of Title I Schoolwide and Targeted Assistance Programs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

schools, those that reported coordinating the use of Title I funds and other funds often 

 

1

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

Grants to local educational agencies

A-24

described co-funding staff positions or services in a way that may have a similar 

practical result as consolidating funds.

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

State accounting rules that require separate accounting for Federal programs..
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

A-25

Student-centered funding incentive grants

(Proposed legislation)

FY 2020 Authorization: To be determined

Budget Authority:

2019 2020 Change

0 $50,000 +$50,000

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The proposed Student-Centered Funding Incentive Grants are intended to spur local 

educational agencies (LEAs) to participate in agreements under ESEA Title I, Part E, which

authorizes the Department to give LEAs flexibility to consolidate Federal funds together with 

State and local funds in student-centered funding systems based on weighted per-pupil 

allocations. Student-Centered Funding Incentive Grants would help demonstrate the viability of 

moving from traditional school finance systems to weighted student funding models and the 

potential impact of those models on improving student outcomes while reducing LEA red tape. 

These grants would be available to LEAs with existing flexibility agreements for activities related 

to refining and implementing these systems, which could include temporary payments to 

individual schools to offset reduced funding and allow for a smooth transition to these new 

systems. The Department could also use a portion of funds for grants to LEAs committed to 

seeking flexibility agreements to assist them in developing and preparing for the implementation 

of student-centered funding systems that meet the terms of an agreement.

To receive flexibility under Title I, Part E, an LEA must 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 a student-centered funding

system, which must use weights that result in substantially higher per-pupil 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 than in the 

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

English learners; in subsequent years, the LEA must show for those schools at least equal perpupil funding for these student subgroups compared to the prior year. 

The Department enters into initial flexibility agreements with LEAs for a period of up to 3 years

and may renew an initial agreement for additional 3-year terms if the LEA continues to 

demonstrate compliance with statutory requirements. Student-Centered Funding Incentive 

Grants could mirror the term of an LEA’s initial agreement and or could be awarded before an 

initial agreement, provided that the LEA can demonstrate a commitment to seeking an 

agreement. In making awards, the Department could give special consideration to LEAs with 

the highest concentrations of poverty.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Student-centered funding incentive grants

A-26

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $50 million for the proposed Student-Centered Funding Incentive 

Grants, which would be authorized through appropriations language and would support grants 

to up to 10 LEAs. 

Student-centered funding systems based on weighted per-pupil allocations have important 

advantages compared to traditional district allocation methods. These systems allocate funds to 

schools based on the characteristics of the school’s student body, making the amount that each 

school receives transparent, quantifiable, and tied to challenges students may face. School 

leaders are typically granted greater decision-making authority under these systems to direct 

investments toward the areas they believe are most in need. And, perhaps most importantly, 

basing funding on student characteristics helps ensure that the schools with the highest number 

of disadvantaged students will receive the funding needed to provide them with a high-quality 

education. Traditional district allocation methods have been shown to create significant 

disparities in funding between Title I and non-Title I schools. One Department of Education 

study sampled a large number of districts and found that 46 percent of Title I elementary 

schools had state and local personnel expenditures per pupil that were below the average for 

non–Title I elementary schools in their district.

1

 Student-centered funding systems hold the 

promise to reduce or eliminate these inequities and enhance local autonomy. 

For an LEA that enters into a flexibility agreement, the Department is authorized to waive those 

provisions of the ESEA that would otherwise prevent the LEA from using eligible Federal funds 

as part of such an agreement. For example, if an LEA wishes to use its Title I, Part A funds in 

its student-centered funding system, the Department may waive requirements in 

section 1113(c)(1)-(2) regarding allocating those funds to schools based on a rank-order of 

poverty. Relieving an LEA from certain ESEA requirements in this manner enables the LEA to

use the Federal funds allocated through its student-centered funding system flexibly, provided it 

meets the requirements of the agreement and the purposes of each Federal education program 

supported by the consolidated Federal funds.

Despite this offer of Federal support free of certain rigid ESEA requirements, few LEAs have 

sought flexibility agreements. The Administration believes that resources may help overcome 

the reluctance of LEAs to participate. Student-Centered Funding Incentive Grants could, in

particular, help LEAs develop procedures to implement effectively the requirement to charge 

schools based on actual personnel expenditures, as opposed to the more-customarily used 

average personnel expenditures. Student-Centered Funding Incentive Grants would also help 

mitigate the potential negative impact on some schools of the transition to a student-centered 

funding system.

To further attract participation, the Department could make a limited amount of funds available 

to LEAs seeking flexibility agreements to help them develop systems that meet applicable 

 

1

See https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/title-i/school-level-expenditures/school-level-expenditures.pdf
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Student-centered funding incentive grants

A-27

requirements. In addition, the Department could consider using its existing authority to extend to 

6 years the initial flexibility agreement of an LEA receiving a Student-Centered Funding 

Incentive Grant award. 

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

evaluation under section 8601 of the ESEA to evaluate agreement and grant implementation, 

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

students, and student achievement and other academic outcomes, such as high school 

graduation rates. 

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2020

Amount for new awards $50,000

Number of new awards 5–10

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

The Department will establish goals and performance indicators to assess the impact of the 

activities that receive support under this program, based in part on the targets and goals 

established by grantees. The development of these measures would build on our experience in 

creating performance measures for other programs, and the Department would also seek to 

align program measures for Student-Centered Funding Incentive Grants with measures for 

related programs.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

A-28

Comprehensive literacy development grants

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

FY 2020 Authorization: (1)

Budget Authority:

2019 2020 Change

$190,000 0 -$190,000

1

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

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

Grants programs under Subpart 2.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

education programs.

In awarding CLD Grants, the Department gives priority to SEAs that will use grant funds for 

evidence-based activities. Each SEA that receives a grant must use at least 95 percent of its 

award to make competitive subgrants to one or more local educational agencies (LEAs) or, for 

the purposes of providing early literacy services, to one or more early childhood education 

programs. LEAs or early childhood education programs that receive subgrants from SEAs under 

this program must serve a high percentage of disadvantaged children, such as children from 

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

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

demonstrated record of providing comprehensive literacy instruction for children aged birth 

through 5. SEAs must ensure that at least 15 percent of funds is 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-29

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

classroom instruction and practice.

Of the amount appropriated for CLD grants in a given fiscal year, the Department must reserve: 

(1) one-half of 1 percent for the Department of the Interior to carry out comprehensive literacy 

programs in schools operated or funded by the Bureau of Indian Education and (2) one-half 

of 1 percent for the Outlying Areas. The Department may reserve up to 5 percent for national 

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

collection, and reporting.

CLD grants are forward-funded, with funds becoming available on July 1 of the fiscal year in 

which they are appropriated and remaining available for 15 months through September 30 of 

the following year.

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

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

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

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

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

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

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration’s fiscal year 2020 request does not include funding for CLD grants because 

of the program’s limited impact and duplication of activities that may be supported by other 

Federal, State, or local funds. For example, the Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies 

program provides nearly $15.9 billion annually to States and school districts that may be used to 

support effective, evidence-based reading instruction. 

The Department intends to fully fund a final cohort of grantees in fiscal year 2019, using fiscal 

year 2018 and fiscal year 2019 funds, to test the effectiveness of interventions and strategies 

that could be funded through Title I or other Federal formula grant programs. Selected grantees 

will be rigorously evaluated 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-30

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

Funding for new awards 0 $363,666 0

Number of new awards 0 6-8 0

Peer review of new award applications 0 $400 0

Amount for Bureau of Indian Education 0 $1,900 0

Amount for Outlying Areas 0 $1,900 0

National activities (including evaluation) 0 $12,134 0

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

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

reserve funds from the CLD program for this purpose in fiscal year 2018, it may do so in fiscal year 2019.

The Department carried over fiscal year 2018 funds for this program and will use the amounts available from fiscal 

years 2018 and 2019 to support a single 2019 competition.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

the cumulative effect of the 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 CLD grantees and 

anticipates using similar measures and targets for the 2019 cohort. The Department is not 

including performance targets for 2020 because the 2020 request would eliminate this program.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Comprehensive literacy development grants

A-31

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 2011 Cohort Actual 2017 Cohort Actual

2015 68% 61%

2016 68 47

2017 Set a baseline

2018 51%

2019

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

assessment score for which the effect size was at least 0.20 standard deviations. This approach 

allows the Department to report standard performance data across States with varying 

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

education classrooms participating in a Striving Readers (for the 2011 cohort) or CLD (for the 

2017 cohort) subgrant program. 

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

on State English language arts assessments.

Year Target 2011 Cohort Actual 2017 Cohort Actual

2015 75% 72%

2016 75 57

2017 Set a baseline

2018 42%

2019

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

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

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

English language arts assessments. 

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

on State English language arts assessments.

Year Target 2011 Cohort Actual 2017 Cohort Actual

2015 76% 60%

2016 76 55

2017 Set a baseline

2018 41%

2019
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Comprehensive literacy development grants

A-32

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

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

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

English language arts assessments.

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

on State English language arts assessments.

Year Target 2011 Cohort Actual 2017 Cohort Actual

2015 75% 62%

2016 75 64

2017 Set a baseline

2018 38%

2019

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

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

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

English language arts assessments. For 2016, the reported percentage does not include data 

from one State.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

A-33

Innovative approaches to literacy

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: (1)

Budget Authority:

2019 2020 Change

$27,000 0 -$27,000

1

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

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

Grants programs under Subpart 2.

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 updating 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)

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

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

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

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

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

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration’s fiscal year 2020 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 roughly 14,000 school districts and 55,000 schools that participate in the 

$15.9 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, Targeted 

Assistance projects. 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Innovative approaches to literacy

A-34

In fiscal year 2018, the Department awarded a final cohort of new, 3-year awards. The 

Department will provide continuation awards in fiscal year 2019, but will encourage IAL grantees 

to seek other funding from Federal, State, local, or private funding sources to complete their 

projects in fiscal year 2020.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES 

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

Funding for new awards $26,732 0 0

Number of new awards 40 0 0

Funding for continuation awards 0 $27,000 0

Number of continuation awards 0 40 0

Peer review of new award applications $268 0 0

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

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

funds from the IAL program for this purpose in fiscal year 2018, it may do so in fiscal year 2019.

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

the cumulative effect of the 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. 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. 

The Department is not including performance targets for 2020 because the 2020 request would 

eliminate 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

2015 70% 76%

2016 70 76

2017 70 83

2018 70 70

2019 70
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Innovative approaches to literacy

A-35

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

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

reading or language arts assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA.

Year Target Actual

2018 70% 54%

2019 70

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

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

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

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

reading or language arts assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA.

Year Target Actual

2018 70% 58%

2019 70

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

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

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

language-appropriate book of their own.

Year Target Actual

2018 100% 99%

2019 100

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

the first year for which grantees reported performance data was fiscal year 2018.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

A-36

State agency programs:

Migrant

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: $374,751

Budget Authority: 

20198 2020 Change

$374,751 $374,751 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. Migratory children who made a qualifying move in 

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

under the program. 

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

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

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

intersession programs provided by the State during the previous year. Starting in fiscal year 

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

allocations will no longer apply. 

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

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

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

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 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant 

A-37

arrangements; in fiscal year 2018 13 States received allocations under $1 million, but none had 

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

to $3 million a year from coordination funds for incentive grants of not more than $250,000 to 

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

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

System (MSIX), which supports the electronic transfer of migrant student records. MSIX enables 

States to exchange migrant student data records efficiently and expeditiously and helps to 

provide an accurate, unduplicated count of the number of migrant students on both a statewide 

and national basis.

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

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

following year.

Funding levels for the past 5 fiscal years were: 

Fiscal year (dollars in thousands)

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

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

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

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

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

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $374.8 million for the Title I Migrant program, the same as the 

fiscal year 2019 level. The request 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. 

The request reflects the Secretary’s commitment to maintain strong support for State formula 

grant programs that help school districts and schools meet the academic and non-academic 

needs of vulnerable student populations.

Migratory 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) often means that 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. This 

high mobility creates additional challenges for both students and the school systems serving 

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

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

school graduation.

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

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

addition to being highly mobile, migratory students tend to live in poverty, have limited English 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant 

A-38

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 program services 

during school year 2016-2017, one-third had moved within the previous 12 months. In addition, 

nearly 40 percent of eligible children and youth were English learners and 7.1 percent of eligible 

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

Education Act.

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

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

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

eligible for services under the program (9.2 percent of the eligible population in 2016-2017) are 

school-aged youth who do not attend school. 

During school year 2016-17, 302,361 children and youth were identified as eligible under the 

program. States and local entities provided services to 223,763 migratory students, 93,135 of 

whom received services during the summer or intersessions. Program funds supported 

2,911 projects that operated during the school day, 755 projects that provided an extended 

school day during the regular school year, 131 summer or intersession projects, and 880 yearround projects. The program served 4,008 children aged birth through 2; 20,727 children aged 

3 through 5; 166,901 children and youth in kindergarten through grade 12; and 17,395 out-ofschool youth. Services 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 migratory students with disabilities, and (especially in the summer) 

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

2020 funds. 

The Department would continue to reserve approximately $10 million in fiscal year 2020 for 

migratory 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 Information 

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

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

Migrant 

A-39

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

Number of eligible children 302,361 302,000 302,000

SEA program:

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

SEA program Range of State awards 0-$114,481 0-$119,488 0-$126,474

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 program results is 

based on the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years and those 

requested in fiscal year 2020 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested 

by those served by this program. 

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

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

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

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

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

for these measures. 

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

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

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

productive employment.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant 

A-40

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

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

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

level or above on reading/language arts assessments.

Year Target Percentage Actual Percentage

2015 44.1% 27.8%

2016 44.1 29.4

2017 31.4 28.3

2018 33.4

2019 33.4

2020 33.4

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

level or above on mathematics assessments.

Year Target Percentage Actual Percentage

2015 47.6% 26.2%

2016 47.6 28.5

2017 30.5 28.5

2018 32.5

2019 32.5

2020 32.5

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

Reports that States submit to the Department. States 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. In 2017, the percentage of students proficient in both reading/language arts 

decreased for the migratory subgroup and similar subgroups, including Hispanic, low-income, 

and English Learner students. Data for 2018 will be available in summer 2019.

Efficiency Measures

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

student records through the MSIX system that tracks how many States are collecting the three 

types of data elements collected in MSIX for migratory children and youth: basic student 

information, student assessment data, and credit accrual information for secondary students.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant 

A-41

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

Year Target Actual

2015 31 36

2016 35 44

2017 43 44

2018 46 46

2019 46

2020 46

Additional information: By September 2018, all 46 states were certified to submit all three 

phases of MSIX data, including basic student information, student assessment data, and credit 

accrual information.

Other performance information

In late 2016, the Department began a study of the Migrant Education Program (MEP) at the 

state and local levels. In particular, it will examine how states, districts, local operating agencies, 

and schools or projects identify and serve the educational and other needs of children of 

migratory agricultural workers or fishers; address the needs of migratory students in designing 

their accountability systems; collaborate with other agencies and organizations to deliver 

services to migratory children and their families; and provide MEP-funded instructional and 

support services to help migratory children complete high school. The final report is due by 

summer of calendar year 2019, and will be used to inform oversight and continuous 

improvement of the program in support of children of migratory agricultural workers and fishers.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

A-42

Neglected and delinquent

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: $47,614

Budget Authority:

20198 2020 Change

$47,614 $47,614 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 who are in State-run institutions, attending community day programs, and in 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

into postsecondary and career and technical education programs.

The ESEA also authorizes, under Subpart 2 of Part D of Title I, a separate companion program 

that provides funding for local educational agencies (LEAs). SEAs use funds reserved from their

allocations under Title I, Part A to make subgrants to eligible LEAs with high numbers or 

percentages of children and youth in locally operated correctional facilities for children and 

youth, including public or private institutions and community day programs or schools that serve 

delinquent children and youth. SEAs have the option of awarding subgrants to eligible LEAs by 

formula or through a discretionary grant process. 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected and delinquent 

A-43

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)

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

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

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

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

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

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $47.6 million for the Neglected and Delinquent (N and D) program, 

the same as the fiscal year 2019 level, to support activities that help N and D students return to 

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

request reflects the Secretary’s commitment to maintain strong support for State formula grant 

programs that help school districts and schools meet the academic and non-academic needs of 

vulnerable student populations.

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 of youth incarcerated in three long-term correctional facilities by Harris, 

Baltodano, Bal, Jolivette, and Mulcahy (2009) 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, considerably below average, in standardized reading tests; 

scores for students receiving special education services were between one and two standard 

deviations from the mean. In another study documenting the academic performance of 

incarcerated youth, Krezmien, Mulcahy, and Leone (2008) found that the youth in the study 

scored on average about 4 years below their age-equivalent peers on standardized tests in 

reading and math. 

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

Approximately 30 percent (21,680) of the youth served by the program in 2015-16 were

students with disabilities. These large numbers of students with disabilities pose additional 

challenges for institutions because such students typically require additional, specialized

support and attention to be successful in school and beyond.

An additional challenge for the institutions serving the population of neglected and delinquent 

children and youth is the fact that the length of stay in correctional facilities and participation in 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected and delinquent 

A-44

educational programs varies widely, ranging from a few months to several years in state adult 

correctional facilities and days to months in juvenile detention facilities. Nevertheless, the goal 

of the program is both critical and essential: to help young people served by N and D grantees 

to reenter our communities, schools, and postsecondary institutions in order to support their 

future success, strengthen communities, and reduce re-incarceration rates. High-quality 

education in correctional institutions can help equip these students with the skills needed to 

successfully reenter their communities and either continue their education or join the workforce.1

In order to support effective implementation of the N and D program, including requirements to 

help justice-involved youth make a successful transition back to traditional school settings, the 

Department has supported development of technical assistance materials related to transition 

by the National Technical Assistance Center for the Education of Neglected or Delinquent 

Children and Youth (NDTAC).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. 

For 2020, the Department would reserve approximately $1.2 million to continue to provide 

technical assistance and other services through the NDTAC. NDTAC 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.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

Number of participating institutions 671 671 671

Estimated number of students 

served 67,353 67,353 67,353

Average Federal contribution per 

child (whole dollars) $580 $580 $580

Range of awards to States 0-$2,443 0-$2,521 0-$2,512

Average State award $899 $893 $892

NDTAC $1,190 $1,190 $1,190

 

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-45

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance measures

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

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

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

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years, and those requested in fiscal 

year 2020 and future years, as well as 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

2015 16.8% 11.4%

2016 17.8 12.9

2017 18.8 12.5

2018 19.8

2019 20.8

2020 21.8

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

that States submit to the Department. Data from 2018 will be available in late fall of 2019.

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

school course credits.

Year Target Actual

2015 59.6% 53.9%

2016 60.6 58.5

2017 61.6 56.0

2018 62.6

2019 63.6

2020 64.6

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

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

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

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

Neglected and delinquent 

A-46

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

from 2018 will be available in late fall of 2019.

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

2015 74.4% 65.6%

2016 75.4 65.6

2017 76.4 59.6

2018 77.4

2019 78.4

2020 79.4

Measure: The percentage of long-term students supported through the N and D program who 

improve mathematics skills as measured through State-approved assessments.

Year Target Actual

2015 75.9% 66.6%

2016 76.9 66.7

2017 77.9 61.1

2018 78.9

2019 79.9

2020 80.9

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

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

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

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

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

State proficiency levels. A number of factors may have contributed to decreased performance 

for these measures from 2016 to 2017. 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. Data from 2018 will be available in 

late fall of 2019.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected and delinquent 

A-47

Efficiency measures

Measure: The cost per high school diploma or equivalent.

Year Target Actual

2015 $4,386 $6,431

2016 4,341 6,337

2017 4,298 6,692

2018 4,255

2019 4,211

2020 4,170

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

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

equivalent to the cost of the program. Data from 2018 will be available in late fall of 2019.

Other performance information

In March 2019 the Department released Promoting Education and Transition Success for 

Neglected and Delinquent Youth: An Evaluation of the Title I, Part D Program,

1

a report on a 

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

and child welfare facilities and institutions through the N and D program. The study included

surveys and case studies of State grantees and local subgrantees to examine the types of 

services and strategies that N and D funds support, how State and local agencies assist 

students in transitioning back to schools, how State correctional facilities implement institutionwide N and D projects, and how grantees assess the educational outcomes of participating 

students. Highlights from the report include:

 Program funds represented less than 10 percent of state agency education budgets; on 

average, State facilities received $82,000 in program funds.

 SEA coordinators reported a greater focus on reviewing subgrantee applications, supporting 

Federal data collection, and conducting program compliance monitoring than on assisting 

with program planning and implementation.

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

implemented an institution-wide N and D project.

 State facilities spent the majority of their funds on personnel expenses; however, many 

State agency coordinators (54 percent) reported shortages of qualified instructional and 

 

1 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies 

Service, Promoting Education and Transition Success for Neglected and Delinquent Youth: An Evaluation of the Title 

I, Part D Program, Washington, DC, 2019. Available at 

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

Neglected and delinquent 

A-48

support staff, and about one-third of State agency coordinators reported that it was a major 

or moderate challenge to hire staff within their credentialed content area.

 Nearly all State agency coordinators reported that their facilities provided career and 

technical education; the most common career pathways available included construction and 

architecture, consumer and culinary services, and computer and information sciences.

 Most facilities evaluated students to determine if they had a disability and needed special 

education and related services, and provided such services.

 Almost all State agency coordinators (94 percent) reported that their facilities assessed 

students’ education outcomes. Outcomes were most often assessed via information 

assessments and standardized formation and summative assessments. 

 Transition plans were generally created while in placement, and youths tended to be 

substantially involved in transition planning activities. However, substantial involvement of 

parents and other family members in transitional planning was not as prevalent.

 Once youth exited placement, more than half of State facilities provided some form of 

aftercare services (such as support for continued secondary or postsecondary education, 

and counseling), although the duration was usually less than 2 months after exiting the 

facility. However, State coordinators generally reported that it was very difficult to track 

academic outcomes for students after exiting, and 58 percent reported that facilities were 

unable to track outcomes for any youth after they exited placement.

 For State facilities that were able to track post-placement outcomes, the most tracked 

outcomes were high school equivalency credentials, followed by employment and other 

labor market outcomes and high school graduation rates.

These and other findings suggest a number of areas where the Department can undertake 

technical assistance efforts, both directly and through it technical assistance arm, the National 

Technical Assistance Center for the Education of Neglected or Delinquent Children and Youth.
A-49

Special programs for migrant students

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2020 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2019 2020 Change

$44,623 $44,623 0

1

The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2020.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

farmwork. 

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

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

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

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

training program. 

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

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

for their remaining undergraduate years. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

quality, and promise of applications received.
A-50

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

Fiscal Years (dollars in thousands)

2015........................................................... ............................$37,474

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

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

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

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

FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $44.6 million for Special Programs for Migrant Students in fiscal 

year 2020, the same as the fiscal year 2019 appropriation. 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 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 

expressed interest in pursuing further education or training and fully one-third of farmworkers 

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

courses respondents attended were English language instruction, job training, 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 and do not attend school. State educational agencies reported that 

9.2 percent of the population eligible to receive services under the Title I Migrant Education 

program authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (27,845 youths in 

school year 2016-17) were school-aged youth who do not attend school.

HEP and CAMP provide participants with assistance that can enable them to improve their 

earnings potential dramatically. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics “Occupational 

Outlook Handbook,”1the median hourly wage for agricultural workers in 2017 was $11.41, and 

these types of workers are often paid based on how much they do instead of how many hours 

they work. By comparison, according to the National Center for Education Statistics, the median 

earnings for full-time, full-year wage and salary workers aged 25-34 with a high school diploma 

or equivalent were $31,800 in 2016 (equivalent to $15.29 per hour) and the median was 

 

1

Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Outlook Handbook, Agricultural Workers, 

on the Internet at https://www.bls.gov/ooh/farming-fishing-and-forestry/agricultural-workers.htm (visited August 13, 

2018).
A-51

$38,000 for a person with an associate’s degree (equivalent to $18.27 per hour).

2 Furthermore, 

the “Occupational Outlook Handbook” indicates that periods of unemployment between jobs can 

cause stress for migrant and seasonal farmworkers, and agricultural work can be dangerous 

due to risk of exposure to pesticides or working with farm machinery that can cause serious 

injuries. Agricultural workers frequently leave the occupation due to the intense physical nature 

of the work, but, because of their poor education and lack of resources, 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. 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, 96.6 percent of CAMP participants who completed their first academic year in a 

postsecondary program continued their postsecondary education. In contrast, NCES data show 

that the retention rate of first-time degree/certificate-seeking undergraduates at 4-year 

institutions was 81 percent from 2014 to 2015, and 62 percent at 2-year institutions during the 

same period.2

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

Outreach, technical assistance, and 

professional development $169 $223 $223

HEP:

HEP Number of students served 4,869 4,869 4,869

HEP Funding for new awards 0 $6,578 $6,972

HEP Number of new awards 0 14 15

HEP Peer review of new award applications 0 $75 $75

HEP Average new award 0 $459 $464

HEP Funding for continuation awards $22,167 $15,547 $15,153

 

2 McFarland, J., Hussar, B., Wang, X., Zhang, J., Wang, K., Rathbun, A., Barmer, A., Forrest Cataldi, E., and Bullock 

Mann, F. (2018). The Condition of Education 2018 (NCES 2018-144). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, 

DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved January 11, 2019 from 

https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2018144.
A-52

Output Measures 2018 2019 2020

HEP (continued):

HEP Number of continuation awards 48 34 33

HEP Average continuation award $462 $457 $459

HEP Average Federal contribution per student 

(whole dollars) $4,550 $4,514 $4,514

CAMP:

CAMP Number of students served 2,119 2,119 2,119

CAMP Funding for new awards 0 $4,970 $5,507

CAMP Number of new awards 0 11 13

CAMP Peer review of new award applications 0 $75 $75

CAMP Average new award 0 $438 $424

CAMP Funding for continuation awards $22,287 $17,155 $16,618

CAMP Number of continuation awards 53 41 39

CAMP Average continuation award $421 $418 $425

CAMP Average Federal contribution per student 

(whole dollars) $10,524 $10,407 $10,407

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years, and those requested in fiscal 

year 2020 and future years, as well as 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.
A-53

Objective: An increasing percentage of HEP participants will receive their high school 

equivalency credential.

Measure: The percentage of HEP participants receiving a high school equivalency credential.

Year Target Actual

2015 69.0% 42.6%

2016 69.0 70.3

2017 69.0 67.5

2018 69.0

2019 69.0

2020 69.0

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

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

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

assessments that have resulted in fluctuations in student performance. Data collected for fiscal 

year 2018 will be available in the summer of 2019.

Objective: An increasing percentage of HEP recipients of a high school equivalency credential 

will enter postsecondary education programs, upgraded employment, or the military.

Measure: The percentage of HEP high school equivalency credential recipients who enter 

postsecondary educational programs, upgraded employment, or the military.

Year Target Actual

2015 80.0% 78.2%

2016 80.0 78.7

2017 80.0 85.6

2018 80.0

2019 80.0

2020 80.0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

credential are also included in this measure. Data for 2018 will be available in the summer of 

2019.

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

first academic year of college and in continuing their postsecondary education.
A-54

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

institution in good standing.

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

program.

Year Target Actual

2015 86.0% 84.5%

2016 86.0 88.1

2017 86.0 88.2

2018 86.0

2019 86.0

2020 86.0

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

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

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

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

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

for fiscal year 2018 will be available in the summer of 2019. 

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

2015 85.0% 96.7%

2016 85.0 96.5

2017 85.0 96.6

2018 88.0

2019 90.0

2020 92.0

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

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

2018 will be available in the summer of 2019.

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.
A-55

HEP Efficiency Measures

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

programs.

Year

Target Cost Per Commuter 

Participant

Actual Cost Per Commuter 

Participant

2015 $9,104 $12,882

2016 9,509 8,075

2017 9,931 9,009

2018 10,030

2019 10,131

2020 10,232

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

programs.

Year

Target Cost Per Residential 

Participant

Actual Cost Per Residential 

Participant

2015 $17,719 $22,847

2016 18,511 10,649

2017 19,338 14,036

2018 19,531

2019 19,727

2020 19,924

Measure: Cost per participant earning a high school equivalency credential, programs with both 

commuting and resident students.

Year

Target Cost Per Participant

in Combined Programs

Actual Cost Per Participant

in Combined Programs

2015 $14,344 $15,377

2016 14,984 10,438

2017 15,653 13,932

2018 15,810

2019 15,968

2020 16,127

Additional information: The Department established different costs for programs serving 

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

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

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

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

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

substantial increases in costs for high school equivalency testing, along with the decrease in the 

number of HEP participants receiving a high school equivalency credential. Data for 2018 will be

available in the summer of 2019.
A-56

CAMP Efficiency Measures

Measure: Cost per participant completing the first year of postsecondary education and 

continuing postsecondary education, commuter programs.

Year

Target Cost Per Commuter 

Participant

Actual Cost Per Commuter 

Participant

2015 $13,697 $10,326

2016 14,314 10,161

2017 14,958 12,009

2018 15,197

2019 15,440

2020 15,688

Measure: Cost per participant completing the first year of postsecondary education and 

continuing postsecondary education, residential programs.

Year

Target Cost Per Residential 

Participant

Actual Cost Per Residential 

Participant

2015 $21,952 $12,354

2016 22,940 13,279

2017 23,972 14,823

2018 24,356

2019 24,745

2020 25,141

Measure: Cost per participant completing the first year of postsecondary education and 

continuing postsecondary education, programs with both commuting and resident students.

Year

Target Cost Per Participant

for Combined Programs

Actual Cost Per Participant

for Combined Programs

2015 $16,693 $11,503

2016 17,444 12,311

2017 18,229 13,765

2018 18,521

2019 18,817

2020 19,118

Additional information: The Department established different costs for programs serving 

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

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

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

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

annually of 1 percent. Data for 2018 will be available in the summer of 2019.