Department of Education

EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Request

CONTENTS

Page

Appropriations Language ........................................................................................................A-1

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

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers ..............................................................................A-4

Summary of Changes .............................................................................................................A-5

Authorizing Legislation............................................................................................................A-6

Appropriations History.............................................................................................................A-7

Significant Items in FY 2018 Appropriations Reports...............................................................A-9

Summary of Request ............................................................................................................A-10

Activities:

Grants to local educational agencies ................................................................................A-12

Comprehensive literacy development grants ....................................................................A-23

Innovative approaches to literacy......................................................................................A-28

State agency programs:

Migrant.........................................................................................................................A-31

Neglected and delinquent.............................................................................................A-37

Special programs for migrant students .............................................................................A-43

State Tables*

State tables reflecting final 2017 allocations and 2018 and 2019 estimates are posted on the 

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

A-1

Appropriation s Langu age

[Appropriations Language]

For carrying out title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (referred to in 

this Act as "ESEA"), $15,926,790,000, of which $4,244,892,000 shall become available on 

July 1, 2019, and shall remain available through September 30, 2020, and of which 

$11,681,898,000 shall become available on October 1, 2019, and shall remain available through 

September 30, 2020, for academic year 2019–2020:

1 Provided, That $15,459,802,000 shall be 

for Part A of title I and shall be made available without regard to section 1002(a) of the ESEA:2

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

ESEA:3 Provided further, That up to $5,000,000 of these funds shall be available to the 

Secretary of Education (referred to in this title as "Secretary") on October 1, 2019, to obtain 

annually updated local educational agency-level census poverty data from the Bureau of the 

Census:4 Provided further, That $1,362,301,000 shall be for concentration grants under section 

1124A of the ESEA:5 Provided further, That $3,819,050,000 shall be for targeted grants under 

section 1125 of the ESEA:6 Provided further, That $3,819,050,000 shall be for education finance 

incentive grants under section 1125A of the ESEA;7 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.8

NOTES

A full-year 2018 appropriation for this account was not enacted at the time the budget was prepared; therefore, 

the budget assumes this account is operating under the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018 (Division D of 

P.L. 115-96, as amended). The amounts included for 2018 reflect the annualized level provided by the continuing 

resolution.

No appropriations language is included for programs authorized under the expired Higher Education and Act of

1965, as amended; when new authorizing legislation of the Higher Education Act is enacted, appropriations language 

for these programs will be proposed.

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-2

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

Language Provision Explanation

1 ... of which $4,244,892,000 shall become 

available on July 1, 2019, and shall remain 

available through September 30, 2020, and 

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

available on October 1, 2019, and shall 

remain available through September 30, 

2020, for academic year 2019–2020:

This language provides for funds to be 

appropriated on a forward-funded basis for 

the Title I Basic Grants, Concentration 

Grants, Targeted Grants, Education Finance 

Incentive Grants, and State Agency Migrant 

and Neglected and Delinquent. The 

language also provides that a portion of the 

funds is available in an advance 

appropriation that becomes available for 

obligation on October 1 of the following fiscal 

year.

2...Provided, That $15,459,802,000 shall be 

for Part A of title I and shall be made 

available without regard to section 1002(a) of 

the ESEA:

This language provides funds for Title I 

grants without regard to the authorization of 

appropriations for those grants.

3...Provided, That $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.

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

these funds shall be available to the 

Secretary of Education (referred to in this title 

as ‘‘Secretary’’) on October 1, 2019, to obtain 

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

the Census:

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

funds to support continued work by the 

Census Bureau to update LEA-level poverty 

data.

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

shall be for concentration grants under 

section 1124A of the ESEA:

This language establishes a specific funding 

level for Title I Concentration Grants.

6 ...Provided further, That $3,819,050,000 

shall be for targeted grants under section 

1125 of the ESEA:

This language establishes a specific funding 

level for Title I Targeted Grants.

7 ...Provided further, That $3,819,050,000 

shall be for education finance incentive 

grants under section 1125A of the ESEA:

This language establishes a specific funding 

level for Title I Education Finance Incentive 

Grants.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Analysis of Language Provisions and Changes

A-3

Language Provision Explanation

8 ...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 raise, from 3 percent to 

5 percent, the maximum percentage of Title I 

funds that SEAs may reserve to provide 

direct student services under section 1003A.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

A-4

Appropriation, Adjustments and Transfers

(dollars in thousands)

Appropriation/Adjustments/Transfers 2017

2018

Annualized CR 2019

Discretionary:

Discretionar y Appropriation ............................................ $16,070,168 0 $15,926,790

Discretionar y Annualized CR (P.L. 115-96).................... 0 $16,107,781 0

Total, discretionary appropriation......... 16,070,168 16,107,781 15,926,790

Advance:

Advance for succeeding fiscal year .......... -10,767,555 -10,841,177 -11,681,898

Advance from prior year........................... 10,841,177 10,767,555 10,841,177

Total, budget authority ......................... 16,143,790 16,034,159 15,086,069
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

A-5

Summary of Changes

(dollars in thousands)

2018 Annualized CR ......................................................................... $16,107,781

2019................................................................................................. 15,926,790

Net change ................................................................ -180,991

Increases:

2018

Annualized CR

Change 

from base

Program:

Increase funding to reflect the President’s Budget request 

to fund Title I Grants to LEAs, Migrant, Neglected and 

Delinquent, and Special Programs for Migrant Students at 

FY 2017 enacted levels. This amount would restore cuts 

resulting from the 0.6791 percent across-the-board 

reduction included in the FY 2018 Annualized CR. $15,926,790 +$34,536

Subtotal, increases +34,536

Decreases:

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. 188,710 -188,710

Eliminate funding for Innovative approaches to literacy

because the program has limited impact and duplicates 

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

local funds. 26,817 -26,817

Subtotal, decreases -215,527

Net change -180,991
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

A-6

Authorizing Legislation

(dollars in thousands)

Activity

2018

Authorized

2018

Annualized CR

2019

Authorized

footnote

2019

Request

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

LEA grants formulas: LEA grants for mulas $15,457,459 $15,897,371

LEA grants for mulas Basic grants (Section 1124) (1) $6,428,036 (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) 3,819,050 (1) 3,819,050

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

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

Section 2222) (2) 188,710 (2) 0

Innovative approaches to literacy (ESEA-II-B-2, Section 2226) (2) 26,817 (2) 0

State agency programs:

State ag ency programs:Migrant (ESEA I-C) 374,751 372,206 374,751 374,751

State ag ency programs:Neglected and delinquent (ESEA I-D) 47,614 47,291 47,614 47,614

Special Programs for Migrant Students (HEA IV-A-5) 03 44,320

To be

determined3 44,623

Total definite authorization 15,879,824 16,319,736

Total appropriation 16,107,781 15,926,790

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

programs.

3 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015. Reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2019.

A-6
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

A-7

Appropriations History

(dollars in thousands)

Year

Budget Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance Footnote

Senate 

Allowance Footnote AppropriationFootnote

2010 $16,431,632 $15,938,215 $15,891,1321$15,914,666

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

2011 15,912,193 15,914,6662 16,726,5791 15,914,6663

(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/A615,875,2311

15,552,693

(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 14,869,641815,455,802816,016,790

(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 Senate allowance reflects Committee action only. 2 The level for the House allowance reflects the House-passed full-year continuing resolution. 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 levels for the House reflect floor action on an Omnibus appropriation bill; Senate allowances reflect Committee 

action on the regular annual 2018 appropriations bill; the Appropriation reflects the annualized Continuing Resolution 

level.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Appropriations History—continued

A-8

Year

Budget Estimate 

to Congress

House 

Allowance Footnote

Senate 

Allowance Footnote AppropriationFootnote

2019 $15,926,790

(2019 Advance for 2020) (11,681,898)
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

A-9A-9

Significant Items in FY 2018 Appropriations Reports

Innovative Approaches to Literacy (IAL)

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 the 2018 IAL competition, the program intends to reserve at least 50 percent of 

funds for grants that would support effective school library programs in high-need 

schools and will consider geographic diversity in making awards.

Neglected, Delinquent and At-Risk Youth

Senate: Within 180 days of enactment of this act, the Secretary is directed to submit a 

report to the Committee describing how each State is meeting the re-entry 

requirements for youth included in ESSA.

Response: The Department will submit the report as directed.
A-10

A-10

A-10

f Request

Click her for accessible version

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FISCAL YEAR 2019 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET 

(in thousands of dollars)

Amount Percent

Education for the Disadvantaged

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

(a) Basic grants (section 1124)

Annual appropriation D 4,618,625 4,587,260 3,777,904 (809,356) -17.64%

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 1,828,275 1,840,776 2,681,497 840,721 45.67%

Subtotal 6,446,900 6,428,036 6,459,401 31,365 0.49%

(b) Concentration grants (section 1124A)

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 1,353,050 1,362,301 1,362,301 0 0.00%

(c) Targeted grants (section 1125)

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 3,793,115 3,819,050 3,819,050 0 0.00%

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

Advance for succeeding fiscal year D 3,793,115 3,819,050 3,819,050 0 0.00%

Subtotal, Grants to LEAs 15,386,180 15,428,437 15,459,802 31,365 0.20%

Annual appropriation D 4,618,625 4,587,260 3,777,904 (809,356) -17.64%

Advance for succeeding fiscal year 1, 2 D 10,767,555 10,841,177 11,681,898 840,721 7.75%

 2. Comprehensive literacy development grants (ESEA II-B-2, section 2222) D 190,000 188,710 0 (188,710) -100.00%

 3. Innovative approaches to literacy (ESEA II-B-2, section 2226) D 27,000 26,817 0 (26,817) -100.00%

 4. State agency programs:

(a) Migrant (ESEA I-C) D 374,751 372,206 374,751 2,545 0.68%

(b) Neglected and delinquent (ESEA I-D) D 47,614 47,291 47,614 323 0.68%

Subtotal 422,365 419,497 422,365 2,868 0.68%

 5. Special programs for migrant students (HEA IV-A-5) D 44,623 44,320 44,623 303 0.68%

 Total, Appropriation D 16,070,168 16,107,781 15,926,790 (180,991) -1.12%

Total, Budget authority D 16,143,790 16,034,159 15,086,069 (948,090) -5.91%

Current 5,302,613 5,266,604 4,244,892 (1,021,712) -19.40%

Prior year's advance 1 10,841,177 10,767,555 10,841,177 73,622 0.68%

NOTES: D = discretionary program; M = mandatory program

Detail may not add to totals due to rounding. 

1 The Advance for succeeding fiscal year shown in the 2017 Appropriation column and the Prior year's advance shown in the 2018 Annualized CR column reflects the 0.6791 percent across-the-board reduction

authorized by P.L. 115-56, the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018, as amended.

2

 The amount for Advance for succeeding fiscal year in the 2019 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.

2019 President's Budget 

Category Compared to 2018 Annualized CR 

Code

2017 

Appropriation 

2018 

Annualized CR

2019 

President's 

Budget
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

A-11

Summary of Request

A full-year fiscal year 2018 appropriation was not enacted at the time the fiscal year

2019 Budget was prepared; therefore, the Budget assumes the Department is operating under 

the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018 (Division D of P.L 115–96). The amounts included for 

fiscal year 2018 reflect the annualized level provided by the continuing resolution. 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 $15.9 billion in fiscal year 2019 for the programs in this account. The 

President’s Budget requests funding for most programs in this account at the fiscal year 2017 

level. This amount would restore cuts resulting from the 0.6791 percent across-the-board 

reduction included in the fiscal year 2018 Annualized Current Resolution level.

The $15.5 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 the consolidated State 

plans the Department anticipates approving for all States during the 2017-2018 school year.

The request would provide $374.8 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-12

Activities:

Grants to local educational agencies

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2019 Authorization: $15,897,371

Budget authority:

Acti vity and period of fund availability

2018

Annualized CR 2019

Change from

Annualized CR

Basic grants $6,428,036 $6,459,401 +$31,365

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

Targeted grants 3,819,000 3,819,000 0

Education finance incentive grants 3,819,000 3,819,000 0

Total 15,428,437 15,459,802 +31,365

Annual appropriation 4,587,260 3,777,904 -809,356

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

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 more than 80 percent of school districts and nearly 

60 percent of all public schools.

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

targeted assistance model that supplements the regular education program for individual 

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

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

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

which at least 40 percent of students are from low-income families or 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 2014-2015 school year, States 

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

which accounted for approximately 96 percent of participating students.

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-13

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

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

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

performance, and supporting school improvement. Under the ESSA’s transition provisions, 

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

the law’s enactment in 2015, and those under “Accountability and School Improvement” took 

effect beginning in the 2017-2018 school year.

Standards and Assessments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

challenging academic content standards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State-approved nationally recognized high school assessments 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 the amended Title I, State standards and assessments are used to hold LEAs and 

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

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

Grants to local educational agencies

A-14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

indicators of school quality or student success.

States and LEAs receiving Title I funds must disseminate annual report cards that provide 

information on the performance of the State and its LEAs and schools. These report cards must 

be concise, presented in an understandable and uniform format, and accessible to the public, 

and must address minimum content requirements including, among other things: a description 

of the State’s accountability system; information on performance with respect to the interim 

targets, long-term goals, and indicators discussed above; professional qualifications of teachers; 

per-pupil expenditures, including actual personnel and nonpersonnel expenditures of Federal, 

State, and local funds; and, where available, rates at which high school graduates enroll in 

postsecondary education programs in the year following graduation. Report cards may also 

include any additional information that the State or LEA determines will best provide parents, 

students, and the public with information on school progress. States must prepare a report card 

for the State as a whole, and LEAs must prepare report cards for the LEA as a whole (which 

must include comparisons of achievement on State assessments between the LEA and State) 

and for each school (which must include achievement comparisons between the school and the 

LEA and State).

The State’s indicators are also used to identify, at least once every 3 years, a statewide 

category of schools for comprehensive support and improvement, which must include the 

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

67 percent. LEAs, in partnership with stakeholders, must develop and implement plans for 

these schools that, among other things, include evidence-based interventions stemming from a 

needs assessment. The State must also notify LEAs annually of any schools with consistently 

underperforming student subgroups or with subgroups performing as poorly as schools in the 

lowest-performing 5 percent of Title I schools. Similarly, these schools must develop and 

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

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

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

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

identified by the State for comprehensive support and improvement.1

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

school year, the identification of schools for comprehensive support and improvement and 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-15

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

for which the school improvement reservation is in effect), the amount a State reserves may not 

result in a decrease in the amount of Title I funds each of its LEAs receives compared to the 

previous fiscal year.

Allocations

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

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

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

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

above the poverty line receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (the main FederalState income maintenance program), children in foster homes, and children in local institutions 

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

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

Part A award to each qualifying LEA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

equal at least 5 percent of the school age population.

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

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

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

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

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

formula.

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

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

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

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

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

Grants to local educational agencies

A-16

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

50 percent if it chooses.

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

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

Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands). The amount reserved for 

the Outlying Areas includes $1 million for the Republic of Palau. In addition, States are 

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

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

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

a threshold that has been exceeded each year beginning with fiscal year 2008. Under 

Subpart 2 of Part D of Title I, a State must also reserve funds from its Title I, Part A allocation to 

make subgrants, on a formula or competitive basis, to eligible LEAs with high numbers or 

percentages of children and youth in correctional facilities for children and youth not operated by 

the State, including public or private institutions and community day programs or schools that 

serve delinquent children and youth. Finally, under the reauthorized ESEA, a State may also 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grants to local educational agencies

A-17

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

2014 ................ $6,459,401 $1,362,301 $3,281,550 $3,281,550 $14,384,802

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 ................ 6,446,900 1,353,050 3,793,115 3,793,115 15,386,180

2018 ................ 6,428,036 1,362,301 3,819,050 3,819,050 15,428,437

FY 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $15.5 billion for Title I Grants to LEAs in fiscal year 2019, an 

increase of $31 million, to restore funding to the fiscal year 2017 enacted level. The request 

maintains strong support for the Title I program, and fiscal year 2019 funds would support full 

State and local implementation of the reauthorized ESEA based on the consolidated State plans 

the Department anticipates approving for all States during the 2017-2018 school year. 

Title I Grants to LEAs are the linchpin of the ESEA and reflect 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. 

To further increase flexibility in the use of Federal education funds and promote equity of 

opportunity for disadvantaged students, the Department intends to invite LEAs in early 2018 to 

enter into local flexibility demonstration agreements under Title I, Part E, which allows a limited 

number of LEAs to consolidate Federal funds together with State and local funds to generate 

weighted per-pupil allocations, better known as weighted student funding (WSF) systems. To 

receive this flexibility, an LEA must agree to allocate a significant portion of its total funding to 

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

disadvantaged students identified by the LEA, compared to other students. These initial 

flexibility agreements will serve as a foundation for the proposed Open Enrollment Grants 

(described under “Opportunity Grants” in the Innovation and Improvement account), which 

would support participants in combining the funding flexibility under Title I, Part E with an open 

enrollment policy, thereby enabling the funds a student generates to follow him or her to a public 

school of choice.

Additionally, 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 this amount 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 trapped in low-performing schools have 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

A-18

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 are unavailable. This increased reservation, together with the 

WSF pilot and investments in charter schools and magnet schools, reflect a comprehensive 

approach to reaching the long-term goal of giving every student, particularly disadvantaged 

students, the opportunity to attend a school of his or her choice.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

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

Output Measures 2017 2018 2019

Allocations by LEA Poverty Rate:

0-15%

0-15% # of LEAs 5,289 5,270 5,253

0-15% Dollars $2,274,650 $2,245,901 $2,255,251

0-15% % of Total $ 15.06 14.83 14.86

0-15% # of Formula Eligible Children 1,898,984 1,898,444 1,898,355

0-15% 0-15% $ Per Formula Child $1,198 $1,183 $1,188

15-25%

15-25% # of LEAs 4,470 4,474 4,469

15-25% Dollars $4,688,701 $4,711,026 $4,733,836

15-25% % of Total $ 31.05 31.10 31.18

15-25% # of Formula Eligible Children 3,608,961 3,608,943 3,608,906

15-25% 15-25% $ Per Formula Child $1,299 $1,305 $1,312

>25% 

>25% # of LEAs 3,083 3,083 3,078

>25% Dollars $8,137,974 $8,189,168 $8,191,258

>25% % of Total $ 53.89 54.07 53.96

>25% # of Formula Eligible Children 5,312,837 5,312,838 5,312,796

>25% >25% $ Per Formula Child $1,532 $1,541 $1,542

LEA Allocation Subtotal $15,101,325 $15,146,095 $15,180,345

BIA/Outlying Areas 169,193 169,658 170,002

N&D Program (Part D, Subpart 2) 110,662 107,684 104,455

Census Updates 5,000 5,000 5,000

Grants to LEAs Total 15,386,180 15,428,437 15,459,802
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

A-19

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 FY 2019 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 (NCLB) 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. Once State plans implementing the new law are approved, the Department will revise 

the measures and targets for Title I Grants to LEAs to more effectively assess performance 

consistent with the long-term goals and intermediate indicators established by States.

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

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

mathematics.

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

above the proficient level on State reading assessments.

Year

Target Percentage of 

Students Who Score At or 

Above Proficiency

Actual Percentage of 

Students Who Score At or 

Above Proficiency

2014 100.0% 54.1%

2015 100.0 39.4

2016 100.0 40.2

2017 100.0

2018 100.0

2019 100.0
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

A-20

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

2014 100.0% 51.1%

2015 100.0 35.0

2016 100.0 36.7

2017 100.0

2018 100.0

2019 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

2014 0.0% 10.7%

2015 0.0 13.0

2016 0.0 12.8

2017 0.0

2018 0.0

2019 0.0

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

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

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

mathematics assessments.

Year

Target Gap in Proficiency 

Percentage Between 

Economically Disadvantaged 

Students and All Students

Actual Gap in Proficiency 

Percentage Between 

Economically Disadvantaged 

Students and All Students

2014 0.0% 11.1%

2015 0.0 12.4

2016 0.0 12.5

2017 0.0

2018 0.0

2019 0.0
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

A-21

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

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

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

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

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

career-ready standards. 

Two States (Alaska and Tennessee) did not submit data for these measures for 2016. The 

2017 data for these measures are expected to be available in early summer 2018.

Other Performance Information

The Title I Program at a Glance

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

Title I program served approximately 25 million students, or nearly half of the total student 

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

Type of Title I School # of Schools # of Students, in millions

Schoolwide program 45,135 24.1

Targeted assistance program 9,503 1.0

Total 54,638 25.1

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

population, is displayed in the table below.

Student Group

# of Students,

All Schools

# of Students,

Title I Schools

% of Students,

Title I Schools

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

American Indian or 

Alaska Native 566,846 367,045 65

Asian or Pacific 

Islander 2,666,919 960,046 36

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

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

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

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

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

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

Students with 

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

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

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

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

of students in Title I schools for the “all students” group reflects the students served by the 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Grants to local educational agencies

A-22

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.

Implementation of Title I/II Program Initiatives 

In January 2017, the Department released an initial report from the Implementation of Title I/II 

Program Initiatives study.1

 The report presents findings from surveys of States, LEAs, schools, 

and teachers and describes the implementation, during the 2013-2014 school year, of policies 

and practices related to Title I and Title II, as administered under NCLB and ESEA Flexibility, in 

core areas including State academic standards, assessments, accountability, and educator 

evaluation and support. The Department intends to conduct additional data analyses under this 

study focusing on the transition to and initial implementation of the reauthorized ESEA. An 

interim report with data on these topics from the 2017-2018 school year is expected to be 

released in 2019, and final report with data from the 2019-2010 school year is planned to be 

completed in 2021.

 1 See https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/other_titleI.asp. 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

A-23

Comprehensive literacy development grants

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

FY 2019 Authorization: (1)

Budget Authority:

2018 

Annualized CR 2019

Change from

Annualized CR

$188,710 0 -$188,710

1

A total of $469,168 thousand is authorized for Part B of Title II. Of the total amount appropriated for Title II, Part B, 

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

Grants programs under Subpart 2.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

The Comprehensive Literacy Development (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.

A 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 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Comprehensive literacy development grants

A-24

childhood educators and related school staff, coordinating activities designed to increase family 

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

classroom instruction and practice.

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

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

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

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

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

collection, and reporting.

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

Fiscal Year (dollars in thousands)

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

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

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

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

2018 ........................................................................ 188,710

FY 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration’s fiscal year 2019 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 $15.5 billion annually to more than 14,000 school districts that may be used to 

support effective, evidence-based reading instruction. By comparison, in fiscal year 2017, the 

Department used nearly $370 million in combined fiscal year 2016 and 2017 funds to make 

new, fully funded CLD grants to just 11 States. 

The Department intends to use this final cohort of grantees to test the effectiveness of 

interventions and strategies that could be funded through Title I or other Federal formula grant 

programs. Selected 2017 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. In fiscal year 2018, the Department will run a competition for new awards and may 

frontload those awards so as not to incur continuation costs in 2019 and future years.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Comprehensive literacy development grants

A-25

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017 2018 2019

Funding for new awards $364,441 $190,490 0

Number of new awards 11 3-4 0

Peer review of new award applications $191 $500 0

Amount for Bureau of Indian Education $1,900 $944 0

Amount for Outlying Areas $1,900 $944 0

National activities (including evaluation) $6,000 $1,400 0

NOTES: The fiscal year 2016 funds for this program were carried over for use in fiscal year 2017. The Department 

used the amounts available from fiscal years 2016 and 2017 to fund a single fiscal year 2017 competition. Similarly, 

approximately $5,500 thousand in 2017 funds were carried over into 2018; the Department will use those funds for 

new awards. 

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. The Department may reserve CLD 

funds in fiscal years 2018 and 2019 for this purpose.

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. Data shown are for the 2011 cohort of the 

predecessor Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy program. The Department is in the 

process of setting targets for the 2017 cohort of CLD grantees.

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

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

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

oral language skills.

Year Target Actual

2014 68% 63%

2015 68 61

2016 68 47

2017 N/A N/A

2018 set a baseline
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Comprehensive literacy development grants

A-26

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 subgrant program. Data and targets 

are not shown for 2017-2019 because the predecessor program ended in 2016 and the 

Department is developing new targets for the 2017 CLD cohort.

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

on State English language arts assessments.

Year Target Actual

2014 75% 77%

2015 75 72

2016 75 57

2017 N/A N/A

2018 set a baseline

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

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

exceeded proficiency levels on the State English language arts assessments. Data and targets 

are not shown for 2017-2019 because the predecessor program ended in 2016 and the 

Department is developing new targets for the 2017 CLD cohort.

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

on State English language arts assessments.

Year Target Actual

2014 76% 71%

2015 76 60

2016 76 55

2017 N/A N/A

2018 set a baseline

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

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

exceeded proficiency levels on the State English language arts assessments. Data and targets 

are not shown for 2017-2019 because the predecessor program ended in 2016 and the 

Department is developing new targets for the 2017 CLD cohort.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Comprehensive literacy development grants

A-27

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

on State English language arts assessments.

Year Target Actual

2014 75% 65%

2015 75 62

2016 75 64

2017 N/A N/A

2018 set a baseline

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

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

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

reported percentage does not include data from one State. Data and targets are not shown for 

2017-2019 because the predecessor program ended in 2016 and the Department is developing 

new targets for the 2017 CLD cohort.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

A-28

Innovative approaches to literacy

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2019 Authorization: (1)

Budget Authority:

2018 

Annualized CR 2019

Change from

Annualized CR

$26,817 0 -$26,817

1 A total of $469,168 thousand is authorized for Part B of Title II. Of the total amount appropriated for Title II, Part B, 

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

Grants programs under Subpart 2.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

may award grants, contracts, or cooperative agreements to (1) one or more local educational 

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

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

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

learning opportunities to school librarians or 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)

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

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

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

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

2018..................................................................................26,817

FY 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration’s fiscal year 2019 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 

$15.5 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. In fiscal year 2019, Department will run a competition for new awards and 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Innovative approaches to literacy

A-29

may frontload those awards so as not to incur continuation costs in fiscal year 2019 and 

beyond.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017 2018 2019

Funding for new awards 0 $26,549 0

Number of new awards 0 15 0

Funding for continuation awards $27,000 0 0

Number of continuation awards 31 0 0

Peer review of new award applications 0 $268 0

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance Measures

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

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

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

the cumulative effect of the resources provided in previous years, as well as the resources and 

efforts invested by those served by this program.

The Administration established the following performance measures for grantees under 

this program.

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

significant gains in oral language skills.

Year Target Actual

2014 70% 70%

2015 70 76

2016 70 76

2017 70 83

2018 70

2019 70
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Innovative approaches to literacy

A-30

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

on State reading or language arts assessments.

Year Target Actual

2014 70% 52%

2015 70 46

2016 70 50

2017 70

2018 70

2019 70

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

on State reading or language arts assessments.

Year Target Actual

2014 70% 53%

2015 70 55

2016 70 55

2017 70

2018 70

2019

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

on State reading or language arts assessments.

Year Target Actual

2014 70% 61%

2015 70 55

2016 70 63

2017 70

2018 70

2019 70

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

served, and, therefore, not all grantees reported on each performance measure. The 

Department is not including performance targets for 2019 because the 2019 request would 

eliminate this program.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

A-31

State agency programs:

Migrant

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2019 Authorization: $374,751

Budget Authority: 

2018

Annualized CR 2019

Change from

Annualized CR

$374,751 $372,206 +$2,545

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. Under a hold-harmless 

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

years 2017 through 2019.

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

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

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

Migrant 

A-32

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

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

arrangements, and 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. 

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)

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

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

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

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

2018...........................................................372,206

FY 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $374.8 million for fiscal year 2019 for the Title I Migrant program, 

an increase of $2.5, to restore funding to the fiscal year 2017 level. The fiscal year 2019 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 

Administration’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.

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

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

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

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

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

needs. 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 migrant population create a need for educational services 

that go beyond services traditionally supported with State and local education budgets. In 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant 

A-33

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

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

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

program during school year 2015-2016, 31.4 percent had moved within the previous 12 months. 

In addition, 38.4 percent of eligible children and youth were English learners and 6.9 percent of 

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

Disabilities Education Act.

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

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

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

for services under the program (10.2 percent of the eligible population in 2015-2016) are schoolaged youth who do not attend school. 

During school year 2015-16 school year, 316,276 children were identified as eligible under the 

program. States and local entities provided services to 216,564 migrant students, 96,352 of 

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

3,108 projects that operated during the school day, 503 projects that provided an extended 

school day during the regular school year, 142 summer or intersession projects, and 936 yearround projects. The program served 3,309 children aged birth through 2; 15,784 children aged 

3 through 5; 185,183 children and youth in kindergarten through grade 12; and 12,288 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 migrant students with disabilities, and (especially in the summer) 

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

2019 funds. 

The Department would reserve approximately $10 million from the fiscal year 2019 request for 

migrant coordination and national activities, including $3 million for consortium incentive grants. 

The remainder of the funds would be used for activities related to inter- and intra-State 

coordination, primarily for maintenance and operation of the Migrant Student Exchange System 

(MSIX), including for technical assistance to States as they continue to implement their systems

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

Migrant 

A-34

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017 2018 2019

Number of eligible children 316,276 316,276 316,276

SEA program:

SEA program Amount for State grants $364,751 $362,206 $364,751

SEA program Range of State awards 0-$115,791 0-$114,372 0-$118,610

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 2019 and future years, as well as the resources and efforts invested 

by those served by this program. 

The Department started collecting data for the 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 will report on the data once it has reviewed 

it and determined that the data are complete and reliable. 

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

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

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

productive employment.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Migrant 

A-35

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

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

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

or above on reading/language arts assessments.

Year Target Percentage Actual Percentage

2014 44.1% 49.6%

2015 44.1 27.8

2016 44.1 29.4

2017 31.4

2018 33.4

2019

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

or above on mathematics assessments.

Year Target Percentage Actual Percentage

2014 47.6% 49.5% 

2015 47.6 26.2

2016 47.6 28.5

2017 30.5

2018 32.5

2019 33.4

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. The Department may reset targets once data for the 3-year period after 

implementation of the newer assessments is available to re-calculate a new baseline. Data for 

2017 will be available in summer 2018.

Efficiency Measures

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

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

types of data elements collected in MSIX for migrant students: basic student information, 

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

Migrant 

A-36

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

Year Target Actual

2014 31 34

2015 31 36

2016 35 44

2017 43

2018 46

2019 46

Additional information: At the end of fiscal year 2016, 44 out of 46 States participating in the 

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

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

one, States were to collect and make available all data elements for basic student information, 

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

assessment data, which is required only for migrant students taking State assessments. Under 

phase three, States would add credit accrual information for secondary students. At the time 

that targets were established, State participation in MSIX was voluntary. On May 10, 2016, final 

regulations for the MEP were published in the Federal Register. These regulations became 

effective June 9, 2016. Because the Department issued regulations requiring States to collect 

and share data through MSIX, targets were adjusted to reflect the expectation that all 46 States 

participating in the MEP would collect all three types of data elements by 2018.

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; 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 at the end of calendar 

year 2018, and will be used to inform oversight and continuous improvement of the program in 

support of children of migratory agricultural workers.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

A-37

Neglected and delinquent

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2019 Authorization: $47,614

Budget Authority:

2018

Annualized CR 2019

Change from

Annualized CR

$47,291 $47,614 +$323

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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). From funds reserved by the State 

from its allocation under Title I, Part A, an SEA awards subgrants to eligible LEAs with high 

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

children and youth, including public or private institutions and community day programs or 

schools that serve delinquent children and youth. The SEA has the option of awarding 

subgrants to eligible LEAs by formula or through a discretionary grant process. 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected and delinquent 

A-38

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)

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

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

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

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

2018.............................................................47,291

FY 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests $47.6 million for fiscal year 2019 for the Neglected and Delinquent 

(N and D) program, an increase of $323,000, to restore funding to the fiscal year 2017 level. 

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

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

reflects the Administration’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. This problem was documented as early as 1996, when a study from the 

Educational Testing Service showed that while most of the inmates in America’s prisons would 

eventually be paroled, two-thirds did not have the literacy skills needed to function in society. 

The findings of these reports show the importance of programs focused on improving 

educational outcomes for neglected and delinquent youth and preparing these students for 

further education or to enter the workforce. 

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

2015-16 count of students with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected and delinquent 

A-39

showed that roughly 12,000 children and youth served under that program were in correctional 

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

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

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

with disabilities. 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.

Most young people served by N and D grantees will reenter our communities, schools, and 

postsecondary institutions; consequently, educating these youth is crucial for reducing reincarceration rates, supporting their future success, and strengthening communities. Highquality education in correctional institutions can help equip them with the skills needed to 

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

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

requirements (following reauthorization by the Every Student Succeeds Act) to help justiceinvolved 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 2019, 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.

 

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-40

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017 2018 2019

Number of participating institutions 673 673 673

Estimated number of students 

served 79,084 79,084 79,084

Average Federal contribution per 

child (whole dollars) $587 $586 $587

Range of awards to States 0-$3,426 0-$3,404 0-$3,427

Average State award $893 $823 $893

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

PROGRAM PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Performance measures

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

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

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

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

year 2019 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

2014 15.8% 13.3%

2015 16.8 11.4

2016 17.8 12.9

2017 18.8

2018 19.8

2019 20.8

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

that States submit to the Department. Data from 2017 will be available in July 2018.
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected and delinquent 

A-41

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

school course credits.

Year Target Actual

2014 58.6% 53.2%

2015 59.6 53.9

2016 60.6 58.5

2017 61.6

2018 62.6

2019 63.6

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

that States submit to the Department. This measure includes students between the ages of 

13 and 21 in neglected, juvenile detention, and juvenile correctional institutions, and not 

students in adult correctional institutions. Data from 2017 will be available in July 2018.

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

2014 73.4% 67.8%

2015 74.4 65.6

2016 75.4 65.6

2017 76.4

2018 77.4

2019 78.4

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

2014 74.9% 68.6%

2015 75.9 66.6

2016 76.9 66.7

2017 77.9

2018 78.9

2019 79.9

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 unchanged performance 

for these measures from 2015 to 2016. 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 
EDUCATION FOR THE DISADVANTAGED

Neglected and delinquent 

A-42

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 2017 will be available in 

July 2018.

Efficiency measures

Measure: The cost per high school diploma or equivalent.

Year Target Actual

2014 $4,430 $5,283

2015 4,386 6,431

2016 4,341 6,337

2017 4,298

2018 4,255

2019 4,211

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 2017 will be available in July 2018.

Other performance information

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

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

welfare facilities and institutions. The study will conduct surveys and case studies of State 

grantees and local subgrantees to examine the types of services and strategies that N and D 

funds support, how State and local agencies assist students in transitioning back to schools,

how State correctional facilities implement institution-wide N and D projects, and how grantees 

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

calendar year 2018 and will be used to inform continuous program improvement, increase the 

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

programs.
A-43

Special programs for migrant students

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

(dollars in thousands)

FY 2019 Authorization: To be determined1

Budget Authority:

2018

Annualized CR 2019

Change from

Annualized CR

$44,320 $44,623 +$303

1 The GEPA extension expired September 30, 2015; reauthorizing legislation is sought for fiscal year 2019.

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

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

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

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

farmwork. 

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

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

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

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

training program. 

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

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

for their remaining undergraduate years. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Programs for Migrant Students for outreach, technical assistance, and professional 

development activities. If the total amount appropriated is below $40 million, the remaining 

funds are to be distributed between the two programs in the same proportion as the amounts 

available for each program the previous year. If the appropriation is over $40 million, 45 percent 

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-44

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

Fiscal Years (dollars in thousands)

2014...........................................................$34,623

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

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

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

2018.............................................................44,320

FY 2019 BUDGET REQUEST

The Administration requests a total of $44.6 million for 2019 for the Special Programs for 

Migrant Students, an increase of $303,000, to restore funding to the fiscal year 2017 level. The 

request would support continued implementation of programs that have demonstrated success 

in helping migrant youth who are particularly at risk for poor educational, employment, and 

earnings outcomes. 

Data from a 2016 US Department of Labor research report (Findings from the National 

Agricultural Workers Survey (NAWS) 2011-12: A Demographic and Employment Profile of 

United States Farmworkers) show that a significant proportion of farmworkers tend to be young, 

poorly educated, unlikely to be proficient in English, and poor. In 2011-12, individuals aged 

14-21 constituted 11 percent of farmworkers; average educational attainment was 8th-grade; 

only 33 percent of respondents said they could speak English well; and 30 percent of 

farmworkers had family incomes below the poverty level. However, a sizable group of survey 

respondents seem interested in pursuing further education or training; 34 percent of 

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

most common classes respondents attended were English, job training, and high school 

equivalency classes; however, their limited education and income affects their ability to pursue 

postsecondary education or obtain skilled work that pays higher wages. 

Not only are many agricultural workers very young, but a large number of migrant youth are 

living on their own or do not attend school. State educational agencies reported that 

10.2 percent of the population eligible to receive services under the Migrant Education program 

authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (32,161 youths in school year 

2015-16) were school-aged youth who do not attend school. 

The HEP and CAMP programs provide participants with assistance that can enable them to 

improve their earnings potential dramatically. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

“Occupational Outlook Handbook,”1 the median hourly wage for agricultural workers in 2016 

was $10.83, and these types of workers are often paid based on how much they do instead of 

how many hours they work. By comparison, the National Center for Education Statistics reports 

in “The Condition of Education 2017” that in 2015, the median earnings for full-time, full-year 

wage and salary workers aged 25-34 with a high school diploma or equivalent were $30,500 

(equivalent to $14.66 per hour) and the median was $36,900 for a person with an associate’s 

 

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 January 02, 

2018).
A-45

degree (equivalent to $17.74 per hour). 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, these workers are likely to need support to pursue 

educational opportunities that would allow them to obtain other jobs. 

HEP and CAMP programs focus on finding and assisting migrant youth who have not been able 

to complete high school or go on to postsecondary education due to limited or inconsistent 

educational opportunity. HEP and CAMP projects emphasize services to out-of-school-youth 

and other eligible individuals by conducting extensive outreach in locations where these youth 

live and work (e.g., farms, production facilities, and labor camps) and providing services at 

locations and times that meet the needs of an out-of-school, working population. Program 

performance data show that the programs’ academic and support services are successful at 

helping participants attain their high school equivalency credentials or complete their first 

academic year in a postsecondary program. Program outcomes compare favorably with 

outcomes for the general population. For example, 96.5 percent of the CAMP participants who 

completed their first academic year in a postsecondary program continued their postsecondary 

education. In contrast, data from the National Center of Education Statistics’ “The Condition of 

Education 2017” show that the retention rate of first-time degree/certificate-seeking 

undergraduates at 4-year institutions was 81 percent from 2014 to 2015, and 61 percent at 

2-year institutions during the same period.

PROGRAM OUTPUT MEASURES

(dollars in thousands)

Output Measures 2017 2018 2019

Outreach, technical 

assistance, and 

professional development $223 $222 $223

HEP:

HEP Number of students served 5,712 5,712 5,355

HEP Funding for new awards $1,414 0 $6,578

HEP Number of new awards 3 0 14

HEP Peer review of new award 

applications $62 0 $75

HEP Average new grant award $471 0 $471

HEP Funding for continuation 

awards $20,798 $22,028 $15,547

HEP Number of continuation 

awards 45 48 31

HEP Average Federal contribution 

per student (whole dollars) $3,889 $3,839 $4,132

CAMP:

CAMP Number of students served 2,491 2,491 2,538

CAMP Funding for new awards $4,198 0 $4,970

CAMP Number of new awards 10 0 12

CAMP Peer review of new award $62 0 $75
A-46

Output Measures 2017 2018 2019

applications

CAMP Average new grant award $420 0 $414

CAMP Funding for continuation 

awards $17,866 $22,070 $17,155

CAMP Number of continuation 

awards 43 53 42

CAMP Average Federal contribution 

per student (whole dollars) $8,882 $8,860 $8,747

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 2019 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.

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

2014 69.0% 66.6%

2015 69.0 42.6

2016 69.0 70.3

2017 69.0

2018 69.0

2019 69.0

Additional information: The source of data is grantee performance reports. Over the last 

several years, changes to State academic standards for elementary and secondary education 

have driven changes to adult education standards and high school equivalency assessments

that have made such assessments more challenging. The changes in standards have also led 

to HEP projects having to redesign their curricula and professional development. In addition, the 

GED Testing Service announced in 2016 that it was lowering the passing score for its GED test 

and that it was applying this change retroactively for students who had taken the test through 

January of 2014. Due to the fluctuation in student performance during the time these changes 

occurred performance targets remain static. Data collected for fiscal year 2017 will be available 

in the summer of 2018.
A-47

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

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

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

postsecondary educational programs, career positions, or the military.

Year Target Actual

2014 80.0% 79.9%

2015 80.0 78.2

2016 80.0 78.7

2017 80.0

2018 80.0

2019 80.0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

credential are also included in this measure. The Department is providing technical assistance 

to grantees on collecting data on program participants after they are no longer receiving 

program services. Data for 2017 will be available in the summer of 2018.

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

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

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

institution in good standing.

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

program.

Year Target Actual

2014 86.0% 86.7%

2015 86.0 84.5

2016 86.0 88.1

2017 86.0

2018 86.0

2019 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 year of the project. Data collected for 

fiscal year 2017 will be available in the summer of 2018. 
A-48

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

2014 85.0% 96.2%

2015 85.0 96.7

2016 85.0 96.5

2017 85.0

2018 88.0

2019 90.0

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

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

Department is providing technical assistance to grantees on collecting data on program 

participants once the participants are no longer receiving program services. Data for 2017 will 

be available in the summer of 2018. 

Efficiency measures

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

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

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

postsecondary education and then continues that postsecondary education.

HEP Efficiency Measures

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

programs.

Year

Target Cost Per Commuter 

Participant

Actual Cost Per Commuter 

Participant

2014 $8,718 $5,985

2015 9,104 12,882

2016 9,509 8,075

2017 9,931

2018 10,030

2019 10,131
A-49

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

programs.

Year

Target Cost Per Residential 

Participant

Actual Cost Per Residential 

Participant

2014 $16,962 $12,750

2015 17,719 22,847

2016 18,511 10,649

2017 19,338

2018 19,531

2019 19,727

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

2014 $13,732 $7,433

2015 14,344 15,377

2016 14,984 10,438

2017 15,653

2018 15,810

2019 15,968

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. Costs for HEP programs increased in 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 2017 will be available 

in the summer of 2018.

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

2014 $13,107 $10,170

2015 13,697 10,326

2016 14,314 10,161

2017 14,958

2018 15,197

2019 15,440
A-50

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

2014 $21,007 $12,521

2015 21,952 12,354

2016 22,940 13,279

2017 23,972

2018 24,356

2019 24,745

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

2014 $15,974 $11,512

2015 16,693 11,503

2016 17,444 12,311

2017 18,229

2018 18,521

2019 18,817

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 2017 will be available in the summer of 2018.