U.S. Department of Education

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Policy and Program Studies Service

Results in Brief:

Promoting Education and Transition Success for Neglected and 

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

March 2019

The tens of thousands of youth in residential juvenile justice and child welfare facilities on any given day represent a substantial 

population of vulnerable youth at risk of academic failure, subsequent involvement with the justice and other social service systems, 

and sustained poverty. The Title I, Part D (Part D) Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, 

Delinquent, or At-Risk under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds 

Act, allocate funds to states and school districts to improve educational services for these youth. The Part D programs are designed

to provide neglected and delinquent youth with the opportunity to meet challenging state academic standards and to help them 

successfully transition from residential facilities to further schooling or employment. In 2015–16, nearly 2,700 state and local 

programs received a total of $162 million in support of more than 340,000 neglected or delinquent youth.

Part D is composed of two subparts: Subpart 1 for state justice and child welfare agencies responsible for providing free public 

education to neglected or delinquent youth in state-run facilities, and Subpart 2 for school districts to serve students in locally 

operated facilities for neglected or delinquent youth and in programs for at-risk youth. Under a provision unique to state programs, 

institution-wide projects (IWPs) allow state juvenile justice and child welfare facilities to use their Subpart 1 funds in conjunction 

with other federal and state funds to serve all youth and to support the facility’s overall education and transition services. 

This study was conducted to better understand how state and local agencies and facilities allocated Part D funds and planned for, 

implemented, and administered educational and related services and strategies funded by and in conjunction with Part D.

Study Questions

1. How do states and local agencies administer Part D programs? 

2. What types of services and strategies do Part D funds 

directly support and are otherwise provided to youth in 

justice and child welfare facilities? 

3. How do justice and child welfare agencies and facilities 

assist students in transitioning back to schools, including 

those outside their jurisdictions? 

4. How do grantees assess the educational outcomes of 

students in Part D-funded educational programs?

Study Design

The study included both nationally representative surveys and indepth case studies. Surveys were completed by Part D program 

coordinators in all 52 state educational agencies (SEAs) and 68 

out of 83 other state agencies (SAs) surveyed, such as juvenile 

justice and child and family services agencies. At the local level, 

surveys were completed by 477 school districts and 533 local facility 

programs (LFPs), with response rates of 75 percent and 

64 percent, respectively. Site visits were conducted in five case 

study states, including 111 interviews with agency and facility 

administrators, principals, and instructional and support staff in 

19 facilities across 10 school districts. 

Limitations of this study include an incomplete list of eligible 

LFP coordinators which may have led to some over- or underrepresentation for some states in the study sample, as well as a 

relatively low response rate for LFP coordinators (64 percent). 

Highlights

• SEA coordinators most frequently reported focusing on 

creating and reviewing Part D funding applications, 

supporting federal data collection, and conducting program 

compliance monitoring; they less frequently focused on 

providing training and technical assistance to subgrantees or 

direct involvement in academic instruction in facilities.

• Few SA coordinators (11 of 37 responding) reported that 

one or more of their juvenile justice or child welfare

facilities implemented an IWP under Subpart 1. 

• Both SAs and local facilities used Part D funds primarily for 

personnel costs, most commonly for core instructional and 

supplemental teachers and counselors. However, roughly 

half of coordinators reported that facilities faced shortages 

of qualified instructional and support staff, and many 

reported challenges in employing teachers within their 

credentialed content area. 

• In addition to core and supplemental academic programming, 

nearly all Part D-funded state facilities and roughly half of 

local facilities offered career and technical education (CTE). 

• Less than 25 percent of all students entered a state or local 

facility with an existing transition plan; more than half had 

a transition plan developed while in placement.

• More than half of SA and LFP coordinators said their facilities 

provided some form of services to youth after exiting the 

facility, such as general education support and counseling. 

Typically, these services lasted less than two months.

• Roughly half of state and local facilities could not track any 

students after exit. Those that could track students most 

often tracked high school equivalency credentials earned 

and high school graduation rates. 
Program Administration

On average, Part D funds represented less than 10 percent of SA 

education budgets and less than 20 percent of LFP education budgets. 

For more than half of school districts (59 percent), declining 

numbers of youth in local justice and child welfare facilities led 

to decreased Part D funding within the last three years.

SEA coordinators most frequently reported focusing on 

creating and reviewing Part D funding applications, supporting 

federal data collection, and conducting program compliance 

monitoring. They less frequently focused on providing training 

and technical assistance to subgrantees or involvement in 

academic instruction in facilities. 

Eleven of 37 responding SA coordinators reported that one or 

more of their juvenile justice or child welfare facilities used the 

option to implement an IWP under Subpart 1. 

In case study interviews, SA coordinators in two states said they 

did not operate IWPs because their entire youth populations 

qualified for Part D-funded services, and supplemental services 

were made available to all youth; they perceived formal 

operation of an IWP to be “just more paperwork.” 

According to the three SA coordinators with facilities operating 

IWPs that coordinated funds under the IWP, the Part D funds 

were most frequently coordinated with funds from the 

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Title II of the ESEA, 

state correctional education programs, and the Workforce 

Innovation and Opportunity Act program. 

Services and Strategies Funded by Part D 

and Otherwise Provided in Facilities

Within state and local facilities, funds were predominantly used 

for personnel costs (83 percent and 74 percent, respectively). 

Funds most commonly supported instructional teachers, education 

support staff, and counselors. 

Many facilities faced shortages of qualified instructional and 

support staff, and roughly one-third of SA and LFP 

coordinators said their facilities faced challenges employing 

teachers within their credentialed content area. 

Roughly half of SAs and less than 40 percent of LFPs reported 

offering incentives for hiring or retaining staff in facilities for 

neglected or delinquent youth. 

To improve students’ academic outcomes, state and local facilities 

used student achievement data to inform instruction, provided 

individualized instruction, and implemented evidence-based 

practices in mathematics and in reading and English language arts.

Nearly all SA coordinators (96 percent) and roughly half of LFP 

coordinators (52 percent) reported that their facilities also 

offered CTE across a wide range of career pathways.

The most frequently offered CTE programs included

construction and architecture, consumer and culinary services, 

and computer and information sciences.

Most SA and LFP coordinators reported that their facilities 

evaluated students’ need for special education (93 percent 

and 86 percent, respectively) and assessed youths’ English 

proficiency (85 percent and 73 percent, respectively). 

Facilities subsequently used a range of in-class services to 

support students with disabilities and pull-out ESL services and 

sheltered instruction for English learners.

Transition Planning and Supports 

Less than 25 percent of all students entered state or local facilities 

with an existing transition plan from a previous placement; more 

than half had a transition plan developed while in placement.

Many SA and LFP coordinators reported that youth were 

substantially involved in their transition planning; parents and 

other family members were less involved.

SA coordinators overseeing juvenile justice and adult correctional 

facilities were significantly more likely than SA coordinators 

overseeing child welfare facilities to report substantial youth 

involvement in informing education plans within transition 

planning (78 percent and 56 percent, respectively). In contrast, 

family members were more likely to be involved in transition 

planning in state child welfare facilities than in justice facilities. 

More than half of SA and LFP coordinators (59 percent and 

51 percent, respectively) said their funded facilities provided 

some form of services to youth after exiting the facility, such as 

supports for continued secondary and postsecondary education 

and mental and behavioral health counseling. Typically, these 

services were provided for less than two months.

Where services where offered, general education support, 

mental health counseling, and substance abuse counseling 

were the most common.

Student Outcome Tracking and Assessment

Nearly all SA and LFP coordinators said their facilities measured 

students’ education outcomes (94 percent and 88 percent, 

respectively) using formal and informal assessments and through 

course grades and credits while youth were in placement. 

Conversely, the majority of SA coordinators (66 percent) and 

half of LFP coordinators (51 percent) reported that it was

“very difficult” for facilities to track long-term outcomes for 

youth who exited placement. 

Significantly fewer child welfare coordinators than justice 

coordinators at both the state and local levels said facilities 

could track outcomes for some or all youth after exit. 

The most common challenges to tracking long-term outcomes for 

youth after exit were a lack of cooperation from youths’ post-exit 

placements; a shortage of staff, funding, or other resources; and 

a lack of or disconnected student information systems.

For facilities that could track outcomes, most focused on high 

school graduation and dropout rates, high school equivalency 

credentials earned, postsecondary education acceptance and 

enrollment, employment and other labor market outcomes.

Additional Information

The complete report is available at

www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html.