Search

Outstanding federal student loan debt exceeds $1.6 trillion and is owed by about 45 million borrowers. Since taking office, the Biden Administration has taken various actions to address student loan debt. These actions have ranged in scope (both in terms of borrower populations affected and associated modification costs), rationales, and the avenues through which they were taken (e.g., formal rulemaking procedures, issuance of guidance). A primary criticism of many of the actions the Biden Administration has taken relate to these actions' costs to the federal government. In contrast, supporters contend that these actions help address borrower difficulty in managing and repaying student loan debt. This report compiles executive actions taken during the Biden Administration that have affected the costs of outstanding federal student loans. It begins by briefly describing relevant federal student loan programs. It then explains the methodology CRS used to compile the list of executive actions. Next, the report discusses accounting for the costs of federal student loan programs, including discussion of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA) because CRS's methodology relies on how the U.S. Department of Education (ED) accounts for the costs of the student loan programs under this act. Finally, the report lists and describes executive actions taken in FY2021-FY2023 that ED recognized as affecting the cost of outstanding federal student loans and provides ED's cost estimate for each action. Table 1 summarizes each of these actions and their modification costs. Table 2 presents net modification costs for the relevant federal student loan programs for FY2021-FY2023.

This report provides a brief summary of the status of FY2025 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (LHHS) appropriations as of the cover date of this report. It also provides background on the scope of the LHHS bill generally and the context for congressional appropriations decisions, including the submission of the President's budget request for FY2025 and budget enforcement in the absence of a budget resolution. On May 23, 2024, the House Appropriations Committee voted to report its draft initial suballocations for all 12 subcommittees, including LHHS (30-22). (These draft suballocations, and subsequent revised suballocations, have not yet been reported to the House.) The Senate Appropriations Committee reported to the Senate its full set of suballocations (S.Rept. 118-190) on July 11, 2024 (15-11). On July 10, the House Appropriations Committee marked up its version of the FY2025 LHHS bill in full committee, and voted to report the bill (31-25). The bill (H.R. 9029) was reported to the House on July 12, 2024 (H.Rept. 118-585). Previously, the LHHS subcommittee had approved the draft LHHS bill on June 27, 2024 (voice vote).

Veterans' educational assistance programs provide benefits or services to eligible service members and veterans and their family members, as applicable, to help such individuals pursue education or training. The GI Bills provide financial assistance while recipients are enrolled in approved education or training programs. Eligibility is based on a qualifying individual's service in the uniformed services. This report provides brief descriptions of the various veterans' educational assistance programs, including the GI Bills, that are currently available to veterans and other eligible individuals through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The first sections of this report describe the active GI Bills and other veterans' educational assistance programs, in descending order based on the number of current beneficiaries. The subsequent section highlights eligibility interactions between the veterans' educational assistance programs and other relevant benefit programs. The final section provides information on benefit recipients and expenditures for the educational assistance programs. A summary of selected characteristics of the various active GI Bills is presented in Appendix A. A description of the GI Bills that are no longer paying benefits and some lessons learned when they were in operation is provided in the subsequent appendices.

The federal government has prescribed nutritional requirements for school meals since the authorization of the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) in 1946. Such requirements have changed throughout the course of history. Current law requires the Secretary of Agriculture to prescribe "minimum nutritional requirements" based on "tested nutritional research." In addition, school meal nutrition standards must be "consistent with the goals of the most recent Dietary Guidelines [for Americans]" (DGAs). Under these parameters, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has established detailed nutritional requirements in regulations. This report discusses the latest revision of nutritional requirements for school meals, as promulgated by the USDA in a final rule on April 25, 2024. According to USDA, the rule was informed by the DGAs and feedback from stakeholders on a proposed rule. In addition to summarizing the contents of the final rule, this report provides a recent history of changes to the nutrition standards and discusses reactions to and potential implications of the rule. While the report covers most of the finalized changes, it does not detail every requirement included in the final rule.

Several federal laws require schools to provide services and accommodations to students with disabilities and to protect them from discrimination. The application of these laws may change depending on students' circumstances. At the P-12 level, three main federal laws protect the rights of students with disabilities: the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). For students receiving special education under the IDEA or accommodations and services under Section 504 or the ADA, transitioning from the P-12 public education system to an institution of higher education (IHE) may affect how a school assesses their disabilities, their eligibility for accommodations or services, and the services and accommodations available to them. Students may also experience different treatment in the same educational context depending on which laws apply to them. This report examines the impact of these laws on students with disabilities in certain key respects: (1) how the laws define disability; (2) how the laws require schools to determine eligibility for services and protections; (3) how the laws ensure students with disabilities receive the accommodations and services they need; (4) the scope of legal protection guaranteed to students with disabilities; (5) how families enforce their rights; and (6) the available remedies.

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), previously named the Veterans Administration, has been providing veterans educational assistance benefits, including GI Bill benefits, since 1944. The benefits have been intended, at various times, to compensate for compulsory service, encourage voluntary service, prevent unemployment, provide equitable benefits to all who served, and promote military retention. In general, the benefits provide grant aid to eligible individuals enrolled in approved educational and training programs. The newest GI Bill was enacted on June 30, 2008, as the Post-9/11 Veterans' Educational Assistance Act of 2008 (Post-9/11 GI Bill), Title V of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 (P.L. 110-252). This report provides a detailed description of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. The first section introduces the concept of entitlement. The second section describes participant eligibility criteria. The third section discloses the period during which the benefits must be used. The subsequent section describes the eligible programs of education. This is succeeded by an explanation of the eligible benefit payments. The final section illustrates current data on obligations and participation.

In its 2023 decision in "Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard," the Supreme Court effectively ended its approval of affirmative action in higher education admissions, holding that practices at Harvard and the University of North Carolina (UNC) were unlawful. The Court concluded that UNC's practices violated the guarantee of equal protection in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which generally prohibits governmental racial discrimination. Additionally, while the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause applies directly only to state-run educational institutions, its nondiscrimination requirements apply equally to private colleges and universities that receive federal funds under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), which prohibits recipients of federal dollars from discriminating on the basis of race. In "Students for Fair Admissions," the Court concluded that Harvard's affirmative action program violated this statutory provision for the same reasons that UNC's violated the Constitution. This report describes the evolution of the Supreme Court's voluntary affirmative action jurisprudence and the "Students for Fair Admissions" decision's implications. The report concludes by discussing the role that Title VI plays in ensuring equal protection in higher education, including several avenues for congressional action under the Act.

The federal government provides varying types of support to postsecondary students and schools, including student financial assistance (e.g., Pell Grants and Direct Loans) authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act (HEA). Postsecondary schools seeking to participate in these federal programs must meet a variety of requirements, including being accredited by an agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education (ED) as a reliable authority on the quality of the education being offered. The United States does not have a centralized authority exercising singular national control over postsecondary educational institutions. Consequently, the character and quality of postsecondary schools and their programs can vary widely. The role of accreditation in higher education is to serve as a marker of a level of acceptable quality across the wide array of postsecondary schools and educational programs. The accreditation process is voluntary and educational institutions or programs must request it. While ED-recognized accrediting agencies' review processes are guided in part by federal requirements, specific procedures for reviews are adopted by the individual agencies and vary among them. This report provides an overview of accreditation of postsecondary education in the United States, including its role in the HEA Title IV program integrity triad. It begins with a brief history of accreditation's historical role and purpose in higher education. It then describes the organization of accrediting agencies and the accreditation process. Finally, it discusses the federal role in accreditation.

The federal government provides child development, elementary and secondary education, and educational assistance to Indian children, in a federal school system and in public school systems that predominantly receive state and local funding. The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) in the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) oversees the federally funded BIE system of elementary and secondary schools. This report provides a brief history of federal Indian education programs, a discussion of students served by these programs, an overview of programs and their funding, and brief discussions of selected issues in Indian education.

The K-12 teacher workforce is relatively large--each year, nearly 4 million teachers are employed in U.S. elementary and secondary schools. Turnover in these schools is high relative to earlier periods--16% of teachers left their school in the 2021-2022 academic year. In addition, there is evidence that teacher quality standards have been lowered in order to fill open positions. The problem of teacher turnover raises a number of recruitment and retention issues of interest to policymakers. The Higher Education Act (HEA) is the main federal law containing policies designed to address these issues. Title II of the HEA authorizes grant support for schools that prepare new teachers. Title IV of the HEA authorizes financial support to encourage people to stay in the teaching profession in the form of student loan forgiveness and other benefits. Congressional consideration of potentially reauthorizing the HEA is ongoing, with the introduction of numerous bills to amend current law and address teacher recruitment and retention. This report describes the history of federal teacher recruitment and retention policy, current policies in this area, and related issues that may arise as Congress considers reauthorizing the HEA.

Families may choose to save for college or elementary and secondary education expenses using tax-advantaged qualified tuition programs (QTPs), also known as 529 plans. This report provides an overview of the mechanics of 529 plans and examines the specific tax advantages of these plans. Specifically, this report is structured to first compare "savings" and "prepaid" 529 plans and, second, to examine the income and gift tax treatment of 529 plans, using a stylized example to illustrate key concepts. The report also examines the tax treatment of rollovers and the interaction of 529 plans with other education tax benefits and looks at how 529 plans are treated in the federal needs analysis for financial aid. Finally, the report summarizes recent legislative changes.

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, P.L. 108-446) is primarily thought of as the nation's special education law, and Part B, which focuses on providing special education and related services to children with disabilities between the ages of 3 and 21 years old, is the largest part of the IDEA both in terms of populations served and funding level. However, the IDEA covers more than special education. Part C, the focus of this report, authorizes state grants for programs serving infants and toddlers with disabilities. Part C extends IDEA programs to infants and toddlers with disabilities from birth to their third birthdays, when children become eligible for services under Part B of the IDEA. Congress recognizes "the significant brain development that occurs during a child's first 3 years of life," as a reason Part C of the IDEA is needed, and specifies Part C's intent to "enhance the capacity of State and local agencies and service providers to identify, evaluate, and meet the needs of all children, particularly minority, low-income, inner city, and rural children, and infants and toddlers in foster care."

The number and availability of service-contingent loan forgiveness and loan repayment programs have expanded considerably since the establishment of the first major federal loan forgiveness program under the National Defense Education Act of 1958. This report provides information on federally authorized service-contingent student loan forgiveness and repayment programs in two tables. Table 1 lists programs that were operational on or after October 1, 2021. Table 2 lists such programs that were previously operational prior to October 1, 2021; that were never active; or for which program information is unavailable. Both tables contain the following information: (1) program name; (2) statutory citation; (3) administering agency; (4) qualifying service required of program participants; (5) maximum amount of benefits program participants can receive; (6) most recently available data regarding the amount of funds appropriated for the program or the amount of benefits awarded under the program; and (7) resources for additional information.

Student-parents face unique postsecondary persistence and completion challenges as they balance raising children with the demands of coursework and possibly employment. To help low-income student-parents earn degrees and credentials, the federal government provides Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) grants to institutions of higher educations (IHEs). CCAMPIS grants support or establish campus-based child care services that primarily serve the needs of low-income students. CCAMPIS was first funded in FY1999 after enactment of the Higher Education Amendments of 1998 (P.L. 105-244). This report briefly describes the postsecondary undergraduate student-parent population and their dependent care costs. It then provides an explanation of CCAMPIS eligibility and program requirements. This is followed by a summary of program appropriations trends, program outcome data, and recent congressional proposals to reauthorize and modify the program. [For Version 2 of this report, see ED629780.]

The child nutrition programs support meals and snacks served to children in schools, child care, summer programs, and other institutional settings in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories. This report starts with an overview of child nutrition programs' funding structure and then provides detail on each program, including a discussion of how they are administered, eligibility rules for institutions and participants, nutritional and other program requirements, and recent policy changes. Changes to child nutrition programs that have applied during the COVID-19 pandemic are briefly discussed in the "Child Nutrition Program Operations During the COVID19 Pandemic" text box below. The Pandemic Electronic Benefit Transfer (P-EBT) program--not considered a child nutrition program--is not discussed in this report.

The Education for Homeless Children and Youths (EHCY) program aims to ensure that all homeless children and youths have equal access to the same free, appropriate public education provided to other children and youths, including public preschool. For students without a stable living situation, the program provides funds to support access to education in the same school a student attended prior to experiencing homelessness, known as the school of origin. EHCY provides formula grants to state educational agencies (SEAs), which in turn provide competitive subgrants to local educational agencies (LEAs). EHCY was originally authorized under Title VII, Part B, of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (McKinney-Vento Act; P.L. 100-77, as amended). It was last reauthorized as part of the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 (ESSA, P.L. 114-95), which was signed into law in December 2015 and authorized appropriations through FY2020. While the definition of "homeless" varies across federal agencies, the U.S. Department of Education's (ED's) definition includes children and youths who may be living in a variety of temporary living conditions. This is broader than definitions under other federal programs that may only count those living unsheltered or in shelters. EHCY relies on local liaisons to identify homeless children and youths at different points during the school year. This report begins with a description of the structure and purpose of EHCY, followed by SEA and LEAs requirements and allowable activities. After providing data on homeless children and youths, the report discusses the challenges inherent in identifying these students, whose living situations are by definition in flux. The report concludes with a discussion of appropriations and whether state-level allocations correlate with the number of enrolled homeless students.

The William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) program is the single largest source of federal financial assistance to support students' postsecondary educational pursuits. The U.S. Department of Education estimates that in FY2024, $85.8 billion in new loans will be made through the program. As of the end of the first quarter of FY2023, $1.4 trillion in principal and interest on Direct Loan program loans, borrowed by or on behalf of 38.3 million individuals, remained outstanding. For many individuals, borrowing a federal student loan through the Direct Loan program may be among their first experiences in incurring a major financial obligation. Upon obtaining a loan, a borrower assumes a contractual obligation to repay the debt over a period that may span a decade or more. Loans were first made through the Direct Loan program in 1994. Since then, Congress has periodically made changes to the program and the terms and conditions of loans. Changes have impacted program aspects such as the availability of loan types, interest rates, loan repayment, loan discharge and forgiveness, and the consequences of default. Over time, the accumulation of changes--many of which are differentially applicable to borrowers or loan types--has resulted in a set of loan terms and conditions that are voluminous and complex. Congress may contemplate making future changes to loan terms and conditions. This report has been prepared to provide Congress with a comprehensive description of the terms and conditions and borrower benefits that are applicable to loans made through the Direct Loan program. Emphasis is placed on discussing loan types, provisions related to borrower eligibility, amounts that may be borrowed, interest and fees, loan repayment, repayment relief, loan forgiveness benefits, the consequences of default, and the methods used to ensure borrowers are informed about the terms and conditions of their loans and their obligation to repay them.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), most recently comprehensively amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; P.L. 114-95), is the primary source of federal aid to support elementary and secondary education. The Title I-A program is the largest grant program authorized under the ESEA and was funded at $17.5 billion for FY2022. It is designed to provide supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving and other students attending elementary and secondary schools with relatively high concentrations of students from low-income families. Under current law, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) determines Title I-A allocations to local educational agencies (LEAs) based on four separate funding formulas: Basic Grants, Concentration Grants, Targeted Grants, and Education Finance Incentive Grants (EFIG). State grants are the total of the allocations for all LEAs in the state under all four formulas. The four Title I-A formulas have somewhat distinct allocation patterns, providing varying shares of allocated funds to different types of LEAs and states. Thus, for some states, certain formulas are more favorable than others. This report provides FY2022 state grant amounts under each of the four formulas used to determine Title I-A grants. Overall, California received the largest FY2022 Title I-A grant amount ($2.1 billion, or 11.98% of total Title I-A grants to states). Vermont received the smallest FY2022 Title I-A grant amount ($40.1 million, or 0.23% of total Title I-A grants to states).

This report describes the Children's Hospitals Graduate Medical Education (CHGME) program's (1) purpose and structure, (2) history, and (3) authorizations and appropriations. It also provides select program data, including the number of hospitals supported under the program, their location, the amount of funding they receive, and the number of residents trained. Finally, the report discusses alternative sources of GME funding available.

Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA; P.L. 89-329, as amended) authorizes the operation of three federal student loan programs: the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) program, the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program, and the Federal Perkins Loan program. While new loans are currently authorized to be made only through the Direct Loan program, previously made FFEL and Perkins Loan program loans remain outstanding and borrowers of such loans remain responsible for repaying them. As of December 31, 2022, approximately $1.6 trillion in these loans, borrowed by or on behalf of 43.8 million individuals, remained outstanding. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous questions have arisen regarding student loan repayment flexibilities and debt relief that may be available to individuals to alleviate potential financial effects related to COVID-19. The HEA generally authorizes several options for qualifying individuals. Congressional and administrative action, including the enactment of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act (P.L. 116-136) and invocation of the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act) by the Administration, provide additional student loan relief measures. This report provides an overview of student loan repayment flexibilities and debt relief provisions that may be available to borrowers facing financial difficulties in light of the pandemic. It first lists some preexisting loan terms and conditions (authorized through statute and regulations) that may be available to individuals. It then discusses specific administrative and congressional actions taken to address student loan debt in the context of COVID-19. The report concludes with a brief description of additional existing authorities that could be utilized to address other aspects of student loan relief.

The federal government has prescribed nutritional requirements for school meals since the authorization of the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) in 1946. Such requirements have changed throughout the course of history. Current law requires the Secretary of Agriculture to prescribe "minimum nutritional requirements" based on "tested nutritional research." In addition, school meal nutrition standards must be "consistent with the goals of the most recent Dietary Guidelines [for Americans]" (DGAs). Under these parameters, USDA has established detailed nutritional requirements in regulations. This report discusses the latest proposed revision of nutritional requirements for school meals, as promulgated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in a proposed rule on February 7, 2023. The proposal, according to USDA, was informed by the DGAs and feedback from stakeholders, particularly in the wake of temporary changes to nutrition standards for school meals during the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition to summarizing the contents of the proposal, this report provides a recent history of changes to the nutrition standards and discusses reactions to and potential implications of the proposed rule.

In August 2022, the U.S Department of Education (ED) announced it would invoke the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act) to cancel up to $20,000 of federal student loan debts for borrowers who fell below certain income thresholds. The HEROES Act authorizes the Secretary to "waive or modify" statutory or regulatory provisions applicable to federal student financial assistance programs under Title IV of the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965 to ensure that borrowers are not placed in a worse position financially in relation to their student loans as a result of a war, other military operation, or national emergency. Plaintiffs filed multiple lawsuits challenging the cancellation policy before any borrowers could obtain relief under it. Certain suits resulted in two federal court orders blocking implementation of the program. The Supreme Court agreed to review these two cases, "Biden v. Nebraska" and "Department of Education v. Brown," and heard oral argument in February 2023. The questions for which the Court granted certiorari generally can be divided into jurisdictional questions, that is, whether federal courts may hear the challenges to the cancellation policy, and merits questions, that is, assuming jurisdiction exists, whether the cancellation policy is lawful. This report begins by placing those important questions in their context, surveying affected federal student loan programs, past uses of HEROES Act authority, and congressional debates concerning student loan cancellation. The report then describes the cancellation policy itself and traces the history of Nebraska and Brown in the lower courts. This report next assesses the parties' key legal arguments about standing, statutory authority for the policy, and whether the Secretary adopted the policy in a procedurally valid manner. Finally, this report concludes with a discussion of potential implications of decisions in Nebraska and Brown for the cancellation policy, for the Secretary's HEROES Act authority, and for legal doctrines that are not confined to the federal student loan context.

This report provides a brief overview of the major provisions of the Higher Education Act (HEA), organized by title and part. Appendix A of this report provides detailed appropriations figures for HEA programs, from FY2019 through FY2023. Appendix B gives a brief overview of the General Education Provisions Act, which applies to the majority of federal education programs administered by Department of Education (ED), including those programs authorized by the HEA. Appendix C provides information related to the eight comprehensive reauthorizations that the HEA has undergone.

This report describes the several programs devoted to financially assisting minority-serving institutions (MSIs) under the Higher Education Act (HEA). MSIs are eligible for other federal programs for which institutions of higher education (IHEs) and nonprofit organizations are eligible if they meet the program eligibility criteria. This report first discusses how the various HEA MSI programs are funded. It then provides a description of each program, organized by the type of MSI to which the program is available. Included in each program description is a discussion of eligibility criteria for program participation; a description of authorized uses of financial awards; and administrative procedures, including a description of how funds are allocated among multiple institutions either via a competitive award process or a formula-based grant.

This primer summarizes the Education Sciences Reform Act (ESRA), the Educational Technical Assistance Act (ETAA), and the National Assessment of Educational Progress Authorization Act (NAEPAA). The report is organized in a manner that aligns with P.L. 107-279, the law that enacted the three acts. The ESRA authorizes much of the federal government's efforts to collect statistics and conduct research on the U.S. educational system. Part A of the ESRA establishes the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) as an independent research institute and the National Board of Educational Sciences to advise and approve priorities for data collection and research. Parts B thru E of the ESRA authorize four National Education Centers that carry out the research and data collection duties of IES. The ETAA authorizes support for technical assistance activities and the development of state systems that integrate student-level data from preschool through postsecondary education and employment. The NAEPAA authorizes support for assessments of the academic achievement of students across the United States. Although authorities in the acts expired in FY2008, funding has continued through annual appropriations legislation. In FY2023, $734 million was appropriated to support IES' activities.

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) administers several veterans' educational assistance programs for servicemembers and veterans and their family members. The GI Bills are the most well-known and popular veterans' educational assistance programs. The VA estimated that it provided $10.2 billion in benefits to over 800,000 participants in FY2022. The largest program, the Post-9/11 GI Bill, is estimated to account for approximately 82% of benefits and 69% of participants. In recent years, Congress has held several oversight and legislative hearings on a variety of subjects relating to the veterans' education programs, including (but not limited to), improving access and eligibility to benefits, automating claims processing to reduce payment delays, educating eligible individuals about their benefits and choices, and trying to ensure benefits are not wasted on poor quality programs of education. This report discusses measures enacted in the 117th Congress that made changes to the veterans' educational assistance programs. Some of the laws that enacted veterans' educational assistance measures address only veterans' education, while others address a broader set of policies. The report presents a thematic discussion of the primary changes adopted by offering contextual information on prior provisions and issues being addressed by amendments and by describing the amendments.

Student-parents face unique postsecondary persistence and completion challenges as they balance raising children with the demands of coursework and possibly employment. In order to help lowincome student-parents earn degrees and credentials, the federal government provides Child Care Access Means Parents in School (CCAMPIS) grants to institutions of higher educations (IHEs). CCAMPIS grants support or establish campus-based child care services that primarily serve the needs of low-income students. This report briefly describes the postsecondary undergraduate student-parent population and their dependent care costs. It then provides an explanation of CCAMPIS eligibility and program requirements. This is followed by a summary of program appropriations trends, program outcome data, and recent congressional proposals to reauthorize and modify the program.

Income-driven repayment (IDR) plans are a subset of student loan repayment plans that cap a borrower's monthly payment at a percentage of their discretionary income, which is defined as a portion of a borrower's adjusted gross income (AGI) that exceeds a specified multiple of the federal poverty line (FPL) for the borrower's family size. A borrower may be in negative amortization under an IDR plan, which means that their monthly payment can be less than the interest that accrues in a given month, and the accumulation of unpaid interest may lead to an increase in their loan balance. Any loan balance that remains outstanding after the borrower has made qualifying payments according to an IDR plan for a maximum repayment period is to be forgiven. Over the last nearly 30 years, Congress and the Department of Education (ED) have created the following existing IDR plans: the Income-Contingent Repayment (ICR) plan, two Income-Based Repayment (IBR) plans, the Pay As You Earn (PAYE) repayment plan, and the Revised Pay As You Earn (REPAYE) repayment plan. In January 2023, ED published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to make a number of substantial amendments to the federal student loan IDR plans. This report discusses the most frequently asked questions related to the proposed rules in the following areas: (1) background on IDR plans; (2) changes specific to the REPAYE repayment plan such as to borrower eligibility, monthly payments, interest benefits, and the maximum repayment period; (3) changes applicable to all IDR plans; other provisions related to delinquent and defaulted borrowers; and (4) the estimated cost of the proposed rules.

Title IV of the Higher Education Act (HEA; P.L. 89-329), as amended, authorizes programs that provide financial assistance to students to pursue postsecondary education at eligible institutions of higher education (IHEs). In academic year (AY) 2020-2021 (July 1, 2020-June 30, 2021), 6,063 domestic institutions had written agreements with the Department of Education (ED) that allow them to participate in any of the Title IV federal student financial assistance programs. To receive Title IV assistance, students must attend an institution that participates in the Title IV programs. This report provides a general overview of HEA Title IV institutional eligibility requirements, as well as some institutional Title IV student aid program participation requirements. It first describes general eligibility criteria at both the institutional and programmatic level and then, in more detail, the program integrity triad. Next, it discusses several issues that are closely related to institutional eligibility: Program Participation Agreements, including the 90/10 rule and campus safety policies and crime reporting required under the Clery Act, and distance education.

The Federal Pell Grant program, authorized by Title IV-A-1 of the Higher Education Act of 1965, (HEA; P.L. 89-329), as amended, is the single largest source of federal grant aid supporting undergraduate students. The program provided approximately $26 billion in aid to approximately 6.1 million undergraduate students in FY2021. Pell Grants are need-based aid that is intended to be the foundation for all federal need-based student aid awarded to undergraduates. In award year (AY) 2017-2018, 44% of undergraduates received Federal Pell Grants. 2 Unlike loans, students are not required to repay Pell Grants. This report provides descriptions of key elements of the Pell Grant program and information on recipient demographics, award levels, award value, program costs, and program funding prior to the effective date of the FSA, as amended. (For information on key changes authorized by the FSA that go into effect for award year 2024-2025, see CRS Report R46909, "The FAFSA Simplification Act" (ED617513)). The first section of this report addresses how the program works and describes the basic process for awarding Pell Grants, including the application process, student eligibility requirements, award rules and calculations, and the role of the institution of higher education (IHE) in the process. The subsequent sections provide information on recipient characteristics and the role the program plays in relation to other student aid. The report explains the complex Pell Grant funding streams and their implications. Finally, program costs and estimates are presented. In addition, the appendices provide historical Pell Grant award amounts (Appendix A), Pell Grant recipient counts (Appendix B), recent and future program funding (Appendix C), surplus and shortfall levels (Appendix D), and acronyms commonly used in the report (Appendix E).

From March 2020 through March 2021, three laws providing federal funding for elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education were enacted in response to the national emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic declared by President Trump on March 13, 2020. The second of these laws provided a higher amount of funding than the first, and the third provided a higher amount than the second. The funds were intended to help the U.S. educational system "prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus." Funds were generally made available to states, local educational agencies (LEAs), private schools, and institutions of higher education (IHEs) to support the transition to remote learning, provide support services to students, protect education-related jobs, provide institutional support, and provide grant aid to postsecondary students. On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act; P.L. 116-136) was signed into law. Included in the act was the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF), which was created "to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally." The ESF was composed of three emergency relief funds: (1) A Governor's Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund; (2) An Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund; and (3) A Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF). This report discusses the ESF and the programs initially authorized under it that were included in the CARES Act, Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021 (CRRSAA), and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA; P.L. 117-2). The report begins with an overview of the appropriations available for the ESF and the required reservations of funds under each act. It then discusses each of the emergency education relief funds, including the EANS program. The next part of the report provides an overview of the other provisions included in the ESF: maintenance of effort (MOE) and maintenance of equity (MOEq) provisions, reporting requirements, continued payments to employees, and definitions. The report also includes several appendices that provide information on state funding under the GEER Fund, EANS program, and ESSER Fund, and funding aggregated at the state level and institutional sector level under the HEERF based on ED's published grant amounts, as well as information about periods of obligation and liquidation of funds and deadlines that apply to HEERF.

Since 1997, education tax benefits have become an increasingly important component of federal higher education policy. For 2023, 11 higher education-related tax benefits are available. After 2025, absent legislative action, this number will effectively increase to 13. Two provisions that are temporarily suspended are scheduled to be reinstated--the personal exemption for dependents (including college-age dependents) and miscellaneous itemized deductions (including for unreimbursed work-related education expenses)--while the exclusion for discharged or forgiven student loan debt will only be available in limited circumstances. The available tax benefits are a mixture of credits, deductions, exclusions, and other incentives. The benefits can be placed into one of three general categories: (1) incentives for current year expenses; (2) preferential tax treatment of student loans; and (3) incentives for saving for college. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimates currently available higher-education tax benefits will cost an average of $25 billion per year over the FY2020-FY2024 budgetary window. This report provides a brief overview of the higher education tax benefits that are currently available to students and their families. The report contrasts higher education tax benefits with traditional student aid; presents a brief history of higher education tax policy over the past 60 years, including recent legislative proposals to modify these tax incentives; summarizes key features of the available tax benefits; and provides JCT estimates of revenue losses resulting from individual tax provisions. The summary is contained in Table 1 and provides information on various aspects of each tax benefit including the type of benefit (credit, deduction, etc.), the annual dollar amount of the benefit, what expenses qualify for the benefit, what level of education the benefit can be claimed for, income levels at which the benefit phases out, and, if the provision is temporary, when it expires. Table 2 contains estimates of the annual forgone federal revenue attributable to each provision.

The Child Care and Development Block Grant Act of 1990 (CCDBG Act, as amended) is the main federal law governing child care programs for low-income working families. The CCDBG Act authorizes discretionary appropriations to support grants to state, territorial, and tribal lead agencies. Lead agencies use these funds to subsidize the child care expenses of eligible children and to improve the overall quality and supply of child care. At the lead agency level, discretionary CCDBG funds are integrated with mandatory funds from the Child Care Entitlement to States (CCES). The CCES is permanently authorized in Section 418 of the Social Security Act. CCES funds generally must be spent according to CCDBG Act rules. Combined, the CCES and CCDBG are commonly called the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), and this report uses the term "CCDF" to refer to these joint funding streams, where appropriate. The CCDF is administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). This report addresses the following topics regarding the CCDBG: (1) Lead Agencies; (2) Subsidy Programs; (3) Quality Improvement Activities; (4) Licensing Requirements; (5) Health and Safety Standards; (6) Inspections; (7) Criminal Background Checks; (8) Consumer Education; (9) Limitations on Use of Funds; (10) Allocation of Funds; and (11) Funding and Children Served.

Veterans' educational assistance programs provide financial assistance to individuals, whose eligibility is based on their or a family member's experience in the uniformed services, while they are enrolled in approved programs of education. The GI Bills--particularly the Post-9/11 GI Bill--are the most popular veterans' educational assistance programs. In FY2022, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) estimated that over 800,000 participants received $10.2 billion in benefits. Congress and the Biden Administration have considered expanding the benefits, facilitating benefit use, and reinforcing program integrity. This report describes statutory provisions enacted in the 117th Congress affecting veterans' educational assistance programs.

Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA; P.L. 89-329, as amended) authorizes the operation of three federal student loan programs: the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) program, the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program, and the Federal Perkins Loan program. This report provides an overview of student loan repayment flexibilities and debt relief provisions that may be available to borrowers facing financial difficulties in light of the pandemic. It first lists some preexisting loan terms and conditions (authorized through statute and regulations) that may be available to individuals. It then discusses specific administrative and congressional actions taken to address student loan debt in the context of COVID-19. The report concludes with a brief description of additional existing authorities that could be utilized to address other aspects of student loan relief.

This report offers an overview of actions taken by Congress and the President to provide FY2022 appropriations for accounts funded by the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies (LHHS) appropriations bill. This bill includes all accounts funded through the annual appropriations process at the Department of Labor (DOL) and Department of Education (ED). It also provides annual appropriations for most agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), with certain exceptions (e.g., the Food and Drug Administration is funded via the Agriculture bill). The LHHS bill also provides funds for more than a dozen related agencies, including the Social Security Administration (SSA). This report primarily focuses on regular FY2022 LHHS discretionary funding enacted during the annual appropriations process. This report is divided into several sections. The opening section provides an explanation of the scope of the LHHS bill (and hence, the scope of this report) and an introduction to important terminology and concepts that carry throughout the report. Next is a series of sections describing major congressional actions on FY2022 appropriations and (for context) a review of the conclusion of the FY2021 appropriations process. This is followed by a high-level summary and analysis of appropriations for FY2022, compared to FY2021 funding levels. The body of the report concludes with overview sections for each of the major titles of the bill: DOL, HHS, ED, and Related Agencies (RA). These sections provide selected highlights from FY2022 proposed funding levels compared to FY2021.

The Public Safety Officers' Benefits (PSOB) program provides cash benefits to federal, state, and local law enforcement officers; firefighters; employees of emergency management agencies; and members of emergency medical services agencies who are killed or permanently and totally disabled as the result of personal injuries sustained in the line of duty. The Public Safety Officers' Educational Assistance (PSOEA) program, a component of the PSOB program, provides higher-education assistance to the children and spouses of public safety officers killed or permanently disabled in the line of duty. The PSOB and PSOEA programs are administered by the Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). Claimants dissatisfied with denials of benefits may pursue administrative appeals within DOJ and may seek judicial review before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Each year, Congress appropriates funding for PSOB death benefits, which is considered mandatory spending, and for PSOB disability benefits and PSOEA benefits, which is subject to annual appropriations. For FY2022, the one-time lump-sum PSOB death and disability benefit is $389,825 and the PSOEA monthly benefit for a student attending an educational institution full-time is $1,298. Public safety officers who contract Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the line of duty may be eligible for PSOB benefits. The Safeguarding America's First Responders Act (S. 3607, P.L. 116-157) provides a presumption of PSOB eligibility for public safety officers who were on duty beginning January 1, 2020. On November 18, 2021, President Joe Biden signed into law the Protecting America's First Responders Act of 2021 (P.L. 117-61) which made numerous amendments to the PSOB and PSOEA programs as indicated in various places in this report. On August 16, 2022, President Biden signed into law the Public Safety Officer Support Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-172), which expanded PSOB coverage to include, in certain cases, mental health conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), disabilities caused by attempted suicides, and deaths caused by officer suicides.

The Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA; P.L. 89-329, as amended), authorizes numerous federal aid programs that provide support to both individuals pursuing a postsecondary education and institutions of higher education (IHEs). The FAFSA Simplification Act (FSA; Title VII, Division FF of P.L. 116-260) makes significant changes to the underlying processes and methodologies for determining federal student aid eligibility. This report begins with brief background on the HEA and administration of the FSA. It then focuses on the FSA's changes to the student aid application process, associated formulas for calculating student need, and the Pell Grant program. The final sections include descriptions of FSA provisions affecting Direct Subsidized Loans for students and the Historically Black Colleges and Universities Capital Financing program for eligible institutions.

Outstanding federal student loan debt exceeds $1.6 trillion and is owed by approximately 45 million borrowers. Thus, a policy to broadly cancel federal student loan debt would directly apply to a discrete segment of the U.S. population. Cancelling some amount of federal student loan debt would alleviate loan repayment burdens for qualifying borrowers, but depending on the policy design and individual borrower circumstances, borrowers may experience different levels of relief, possibly resulting in different effects on their personal finances. Broad-based student loan cancellation would have significant implications for the federal budget. A primary determinant of the cost to the government would be the total amount of student loan debt to be cancelled. Other cost determinants would include how the loan cancellation policy was to be effectuated, associated administrative costs, and borrower behavior. Cancelling federal student loan debt may have implications for the federal student loan system. Loan cancellation, particularly a one-time cancellation effort, might not address underlying issues relating to unmanageable amounts of student loan debt. Some recent research suggests that policies to provide across-the-board loan cancellation may result in higher-income households receiving a higher share of loan cancellation benefits than lower-income households in terms of total dollar amounts cancelled and savings in annual debt service payments. Other research, examining potential effects on wealth inequality, shows mixed evidence on the potential effects of student loan cancellation. Some original analyses presented in this report to complement existing research focus on longitudinal data from a 12-year follow up on the cohort of borrowers who started postsecondary education in academic year 2003-2004. These analyses suggest that certain groups of borrowers (Black, American Indian, and lower income Title IV student loan borrowers) have made less progress in paying down the original principal amount of their student loan debt when compared with borrowers of other races or ethnicities or household income levels. Among other findings, these analyses also suggest that individuals who borrowed larger amounts were less likely to have made progress in paying down the original principal amount borrowed than borrowers with lower principal amounts. These analyses also suggest that while 26% of borrowers had no remaining loan balance, among those with outstanding loans a large share (60%) had an outstanding balance greater than 90% of the original amount borrowed.

An estimated 339,000 workers were employed in foodservice operations in the nation's elementary and secondary schools. While news stories often focus on so-called "lunch ladies," the school foodservice workforce encompasses employees ranging from front-line cafeteria workers to chefs and food preparation staff to administrators and managers. Such workers have a variety of skills and educational backgrounds and differ in their labor market outcomes. Federal funding and policies have affected the trajectory of the school foodservice workforce over time. While early school food programs in the United States were started locally, the introduction of federal funding in the 1930s led to an expansion and professionalization of the workforce, which was (and remains) comprised largely of women. Federal funding for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) was made permanent in 1946 and, together with funding for the School Breakfast Program (SBP), now provides the bulk of school foodservice departments' budgets. This report details the history of the school foodservice labor force and policy shifts that have affected the workforce over time, including a recent trend toward outsourcing. It provides an overview of school foodservice positions, budgets, and operations, and the federal laws, policies, and funding streams applicable to the workforce, including labor laws and funding for workforce training. It also presents original estimates of the characteristics and labor market outcomes of public-sector school foodservice workers using American Community Survey (ACS) data from 2015 to 2019.

Career and technical education (CTE), sometimes referred to as vocational education, provides occupational and non-occupational preparation at the secondary and postsecondary levels. CTE is a key element of the nation's workforce development system, providing students of all ages with both academic and technical skills to succeed in further education and future careers. Federal investments in CTE aim to increase the number of individuals with industry-recognized credentials in order to reduce unemployment, improve individual earnings, and benefit the nation's economy. This report provides a primer on CTE to support congressional discussion of initiatives designed to improve workforce development and to address some skills deficits that may exist in the workforce.

In the United States, more than 70 million students are enrolled in public elementary and secondary (K-12) schools or degree-granting postsecondary institutions. School and campus safety and security for these students encompasses many issues, including violence prevention and response, school climate, and the physical and mental health of the school community. Students' safety and security while in school is an area of concern for the federal government and state and local governments, as well as school districts, institutions of higher education, students' families, and Members of Congress. This report provides an overview of grant programs at the U.S. Department of Education (ED), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that provide direct or indirect funding for school and campus safety and security initiatives. The report also provides an overview of programs and initiatives administered by these departments that support school safety and security efforts in other ways, such as through data collection and reporting and technical assistance.

This report starts with an overview of child nutrition programs' funding structure and then provides detail on each program, including a discussion of how they are administered, eligibility rules for institutions and participants, nutritional and other program requirements, and recent policy changes. Changes to child nutrition programs that have applied during the COVID-19 pandemic are briefly discussed.

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), most recently comprehensively amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; P.L. 114-95), is the primary source of federal aid to support elementary and secondary education. The Title I-A program is the largest grant program authorized under the ESEA and was funded at $16.5 billion for FY2021. It is designed to provide supplementary educational and related services to low-achieving and other students attending elementary and secondary schools with relatively high concentrations of students from lowincome families. Under current law, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) determines Title I-A grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) based on four separate funding formulas: Basic Grants, Concentration Grants, Targeted Grants, and Education Finance Incentive Grants (EFIG). State grants are the total of the allocations for all LEAs in the state under all four formulas. The four Title I-A formulas have somewhat distinct allocation patterns, providing varying shares of allocated funds to different types of LEAs and states. Thus, for some states, certain formulas are more favorable than others. This report provides FY2021 state grant amounts under each of the four formulas used to determine Title I-A grants. Overall, California received the largest FY2021 Title I-A grant amount ($2.0 billion, or 12.48% of total Title I-A grants). Vermont received the smallest FY2021 Title I-A grant amount ($37.5 million, or 0.23% of total Title I-A grants).

Several federal agencies, including the Small Business Administration (SBA), provide training and other assistance to veterans seeking civilian employment. In recent years, the unemployment rate among veterans as a whole has generally been similar to or lower than the unemployment rate for nonveterans 18 years and older. However, veterans who have left the military since September 2001 have experienced higher unemployment than other veterans and, in some years, higher unemployment than nonveterans. As a result, Congress has focused much of its attention on finding ways to assist veterans who have left the military since September 2001. The SBA provides management and technical assistance services to more than 100,000 veterans each year through its various management and technical assistance training partners. This report opens with an examination of the economic circumstances of veteran-owned businesses. It then provides a brief overview of veterans' employment experiences, comparing unemployment and labor force participation rates for veterans, veterans who have left the military since September 2001, and nonveterans. The report also describes employment assistance programs offered by several federal agencies to assist veterans in their transition from the military to the civilian labor force and examines, in greater detail, the SBA's veteran business development programs, the SBA's efforts to assist veterans' access to capital, and the SBA's service-disabled veteran-owned (SDVOSB) federal procurement program. It also discusses the SBA's Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan program and P.L. 114-38, the Veterans Entrepreneurship Act of 2015, which authorized and made permanent, under specified circumstances, the SBA's recent practice of waiving the SBAExpress loan program's one time, up-front loan guarantee fee for veterans (and their spouses).

This report provides an overview of major provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). It also includes a table showing annual appropriations for ESEA programs for FY2017 through FY2022, as well as a table showing the transition in authorized programs and related appropriations from FY2016, when No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) provisions were still in effect, to FY2017, when Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) provisions took effect. A table detailing authorizations of appropriations under current law is also included. The ESSA authorized appropriations for ESEA programs through FY2020.

The Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act (Perkins Act) is the primary federal law aimed at developing and supporting career and technical education (CTE) programs for secondary and postsecondary students. In the 109th Congress, the Perkins Act was reauthorized by the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006 (Perkins IV; P.L. 109-270). The Perkins Act was most recently amended in the 115th Congress by the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act (Perkins V; P.L. 115-224). Perkins V was signed into law by President Trump in July 2018 and went into effect on July 1, 2019. The purpose of the act is to develop more fully the academic knowledge and technical and employability skills of secondary and postsecondary students who elect to enroll in CTE programs. This report provides an overview of Perkins V, including its design, implementation, and funding as described in statute. After a brief introduction to CTE, the report is divided into sections that focus on a detailed description of the Basic State Grants (BSG), discuss National Activities and other programs under Title I, and summarize additional provisions under Title II. A final section summarizes Perkins V authorizations and appropriations. The appendices provide a brief history of federal involvement in CTE as well as formulas and allocations for the BSG.

This report is a response to congressional requests for the Congressional Research Service (CRS) to identify, synthesize, and explain the core components of the workforce skills gap discourse and, to the extent possible, explore and clarify evidence on the existence of skills gaps. The report acknowledges that the skills gap label is often applied to several different circumstances and conditions, and it offers a discussion of the varied meanings associated with the term. The report attempts to shed light on the nature and existence of various types of skills misalignments and explores their potential policy implications. The report presents a limited review of indicators that are commonly cited as evidence of the existence of skill misalignments. These include broad indicators examining job openings and hires, employer wage responses to unfilled jobs, educational credentials possessed in relation to those required, and the adequacy of measurable foundational skills among current (and future) workers. The report notes that these indicators, which measure trends of relevance to the skills gap debate, do not clearly suggest that widespread misalignments exist. At the same time, this review cannot rule out misalignments as a possibility. The report notes as well that available existing broad indicators have limitations, some indicators may be imprecise, and some indicators are generated through imperfect research. With regard to a more narrow examination of skill shortages affecting particular occupations or fields in which there is an undersupply of credentialed workers, or in which work demands may be changing rapidly, the report notes there is more agreement about the existence of some misalignments. The report highlights illustrative examples of fields in which evidence points to shortages. Also discussed is the complexity associated with isolating the causes when occupations, employers, and regions face difficulty in filling positions. That is, it is difficult to attribute hiring challenges to a skills shortage when there are often many other plausible explanations for hiring challenges. Throughout the report, there is discussion of enduring challenges that complicate policymaking in this arena. One is that the skills gap label encompasses a series of somewhat separate (but interrelated) issues, and it is not clear that there is a common problem definition or consensus about what may need to be addressed. Further, it can be hard to reach agreement about respective responsibilities of workers, employers, and government in ensuring the acquisition of skills. While there are numerous federal investments promoting a skilled workforce, there is no clear agreement about whether, or the extent to which, the different skills-related challenges being addressed by federal policies need to be thought of as a continuum and addressed in an interconnected manner.

Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA; P.L. 89-329, as amended) authorizes the operation of three federal student loan programs: the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) program, the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program, and the Federal Perkins Loan program. While new loans are currently authorized to be made only through the Direct Loan program, previously made FFEL and Perkins Loan program loans remain outstanding and borrowers of such loans remain responsible for repaying them. In response to the current Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, numerous questions have arisen regarding student loan repayment flexibilities and debt relief that may be available to individuals to alleviate potential financial effects related to COVID-19. The HEA generally authorizes several options for qualifying individuals. Recent administrative and congressional action, including the enactment of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act (P.L. 116-136), provide additional student loan relief measures. This report provides an overview of student loan repayment flexibilities and debt relief provisions that may be available to borrowers facing financial difficulties resulting from the pandemic. It first lists some preexisting loan terms and conditions (authorized through statute and regulations) that may be available to individuals. It then discusses specific administrative and congressional actions taken to address student loan debt in the context of COVID-19. The report concludes with a brief description of additional existing authorities that could be utilized to address other aspects of student loan relief.