There are three main categories of federal education funding to states:
 

Discretionary Grants: Funding appropriated to executive branch agencies through legislation with broad authority for agencies to administer grants to third parties. Promise Neighborhood and Full Service Community School Grants are examples. The U.S. Department of Education competitively awards grants to state and local entities.

Formula-Driven Grants: Funding is awarded based on statutory language mandating how it should be distributed to grantees. The statutory language also includes requirements for how funding can be used. Title I and Title IV A are formula grants. The funding flows from the U.S. Department of Education to SEAs and then to local school districts following formulas outlined in the law. 21st CCLC is a hybrid formula grant that flows from the U.S. Department of Education to SEAs based on a mandated formula, and then SEAs use a competitive grant process to award grants to local schools and community-based organizations.

Block Grants: Funding that is distributed to states by statute with minimal constraints on how that funding can be deployed to achieve a specific outcome. The Child Care Development Block Grant is an example. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services provides funds and overarching guidelines to state child care and/or education agencies that largely determine their own regulations for utilizing the funds in their state, including setting their own licensing requirements for providers.

Consolidation of Funding May Vary by State

In the event of a block grant to states that consolidates federal education funds (like 21st CCLC, Title III-English Language Learner support, Title II-teacher professional development, Title IV-A-Student Support and Academic Enrichment, and others), the devil will be in the details. There may be minimum standard requirements that a state must follow (as is the case with the Child Care Development Block Grant); or other guard rails or set-asides, or there may not be. There may be no guarantee that the state spend funds on afterschool or summer programs, or that the state continue to provide training, professional development and quality support to programs as is the case under 21st CCLC.  Some states could use block grant flexibility to fund vouchers for private schools or other priorities; or states may choose to direct all funds to schools and the school day/classroom.

It is possible the U.S. Department of Education will attempt to use the ESEA waiver process to grant additional flexibility to states. However, there are limits to that process, and 21st CCLC, for example, could not be consolidated with other Title funds under a waiver. To remake federal education funding into a block grant, Congress would need to pass a law changing ESEA.

A final note on challenges, a block grant approach to federal education funding could result in less overall funding for states than they currently receive. The first Trump Administration proposed to create one large block grant during the FY 2021 budget process and simultaneously proposed to cut funding by 20%.  Lumping all the funding together makes it easier to cut because it’s harder to show impact on specific programs, students, and communities. 

History has shown us it is easier for Congress to cut one big block grant than individual programs. According to an analysis by the Center for Budget Policy Priorities, between 2000 and 2017, overall funding for the 13 major housing, health, and social services block grant programs in the federal budget fell by 27 percent or $14 billion, after adjusting for inflation. One of the larger block grant programs, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), lost a third of its value during those 17 years. 

If major federal K-12 funding programs are shifted to block grants, key considerations for state policymakers will include:

• Determining options for distributing block-granted funds and weighing their costs and benefits, such as:

  • Award new block grants via existing state funding formulas, whether those are based on the Title I formula or another state-determined formula.

  • Award new block grant funds via a newly developed formula based on priority student needs.

• Deciding whether to keep in place the existing funding structures and offices at the state level (like 21st CCLC, for example) or change the state-level infrastructure.  

• Determining how to align funding mechanisms with student needs, focusing particularly on students whose needs are not currently being met, including those in families with low incomes.  

• Providing sufficient guidance and guardrails on the use of funds to maximize efficacy and protect students in the absence of federal requirements.

• Addressing oversight mechanisms to balance flexibility with accountability.

Some states will make these decisions at the executive level and through state education agencies and state boards of education. Other states will need their legislature to weigh in and pass state laws establishing how block grant funds will be used.  

More on possible state actions:

Block Grants: A Framework for States’ Response to Potential Flexibility in Federal K-12 Education Funds

Congressional Research Office - Block Grants: Perspectives and Controversies

While each state is different, a good place to start is your state education agency, followed by your legislative champions and governor’s office contacts. Starting a conversation early, predicated on a “just in case this happens,” will help you identify the path forward. Consider these two approaches for continuing afterschool support in the state: 

Keep what isn’t broken: States could opt to continue to fund 21st CCLC in their states at the same level at which it is currently funded, or could opt to increase funding for 21st CCLC using federal block grant funds. If providers and the state are satisfied with how 21st CCLC works in the state, this could be the easiest path forward and would be the least disruptive to students, families, and providers. The increased flexibility of a block grant would also allow for improvements to the state’s 21st CCLC grant program. For instance, a state may want to forward funds to grantees rather than use a reimbursement model to encourage small nonprofits and districts to apply.

Build on State Solutions: Twenty six states and Washington DC have their own state funding streams and state grant programs for afterschool and summer learning. The federal education block grant could be an opportunity to redirect the same amount of funding that the state previously received through 21st CCLC into the state funded grant program. For example, in Michigan the Out of School Time Grants are funded with $75 million in state funding, however the state also received $39 million in 21st CCLC funding. Under a flexible block grant those federal funds could be combined with the state’s funds to increase the reach of the state’s Out of School Time Grants. This table shows how much 21st CCLC funding each state is expected to receive for FY2025.

States that currently do not have their own state funding stream, and do not want to maintain their current 21st CCLC system could advocate for a new state afterschool program funded by the federal education block grant. Grant programs like those in Georgia and Idaho could serve as examples.

If a state opts to use federal block grant funds to create a new state afterschool or summer learning grant program, or enhances an existing one, the following considerations can contribute to a strong and comprehensive afterschool program structure:

• Require a combination of high quality enrichment activities, academics, and family engagement, as 21st CCLC has effectively done

• Include a mechanism for local grantees to solicit program design input from students, families, and community members

• Ensure programs can be operated by public, private, community-based, faith-based or other entities as long as they are as accessible as they would be at a public school to all students without cost or transportation barriers

• Establish that grants are decided by a state-level peer review process

• Ensure states set aside funding for administration, monitoring, capacity building, training and technical assistance, professional development, dissemination of best practices, supporting alignment to school day learning, and evaluation

• Consider targeting grants to districts and providers serving a high population of low-income students, and aim to serve students who have the greatest need in those areas

• Ensure grant amounts are of sufficient size and scope to run high-quality programs

• Include performance measures collected by the state in areas such as school-day attendance or high school work-based learning opportunities and track student improvement on indicators over time

• Ensure data collection and sharing agreements are in place between school and community partners working together to provide programs

• Consider a requirement for grants to reach rural and urban areas

• Require grant applicants to show evidence of partnership between schools and community partners

• Ensure grant applicants are evaluated for providing high quality enrichment opportunities and use evaluations to strengthen programming

Another approach is incorporating federal block grant funds into School funding formula models. Some states establish mechanisms for districts to create student supports, such as afterschool and summer programs, in their funding formula models. For example:

• Community Education Programs – Minnesota- https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/124D.19

• Maryland Community Schools - https://blueprint.marylandpublicschools.org/community-schools/

• Texas Additional School Day formula funding - https://tea.texas.gov/academics/learning-support-and-programs/additional-days-school-year 

State and local education agencies are likely to seize the opportunity to exercise greater control over funds to advance their priorities. Talk to them now about the ways the field supports those priorities!  

• Do you know their focus and challenges? 

  • Well-being, chronic absenteeism, learning recovery, workforce development, competency-based learning, family engagement/attracting families to public schools can all be connected back to afterschool and summer opportunties.

• Sometimes, states are motivated to keep up or not lag behind other states. Check out this chart of state approaches to funding and, if helpful, share the momentum building across the country (see map of funding and examples and factsheet on state funding growth and afterschool outcomes).

Consider these messages as starting points in your communications to help decision makers understand why maintaining and growing investments in programs matters for them. You can also pull from the factsheet on state funding growth with key benefits. 

• When we invest in afterschool and summer learning opportunities for young people, we invest in [STATE’s] future. Right now, programs in our state are helping youth thrive – they’re doing better in school, connecting with peers and mentors, and building life and work skills.  

• If programs are forced to close, students will lose learning opportunities and parents will have no place for their kids to go while they are working. [STATE] can’t afford to turn the lights out afterschool.

• Programs are vital to supporting academic growth and well-being. We don’t want to lose more ground, or leave our youth in crisis. 

• Chronic absenteeism has become a persistent challenge. Quality afterschool programs increase student attendance. A national study found that nearly 1 in 2 students in federally funded afterschool programs who had been chronically absent improved their school day attendance.

• Adapt tools from other states to help make your case: 

  • Texas: A factsheet about funding programs for OST in Texas with data on funding sources, amount invested and students served. Makes the case for sustaining progress and closing gaps.

  • New Mexico: A factsheet about the impact of OST and statewide funding gaps with data about New Mexico's ESSER III grant investments. 

  • Michigan: An overview of Michigan's OST grant program with data on youth served, program offerings, parent testimonials and funding gaps in recent years.

  • Hawaii: A factsheet with data about Hawaii's funding gap for OST programs that shows the level of state investment and how funding is allocated to operate afterschool and summer programs. 

Make sure you can quantify the reach, value, and demand for afterschool and summer programs supported by federal funds. Consider:

• 21st CCLC: 

  • number of children and communities served 

  • amount of funding that currently supports afterschool and summer run by schools, CBOs, and other providers

  • outcomes from any studies and evaluations 

  • percent of applications state was able to fund 

  • data or examples that tie to agency top priorities (see step 2)

Resources:

• Your State Fact Sheet: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1D-o_QTmUFQItN-gAtqb6HKT1kK_ORtCN

• 21st CCLC national fact sheet: http://afterschoolalliance.org/documents/21stCCLC-Overview-2025.pdf 

• 21st CCLC budget table: http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/documents/21stCCLC-budget-chart.pdf 

• 21st CCLC evaluation summary: http://afterschoolalliance.org/documents/Recent-Evaluations-of-21stCCLC-Illustrate-Wide-Range-of-Benefits-2023.pdf 

• How much funding does my public school get from the federal government? | NEA

• DOGE Cuts by City, State, and Congressional District - Center for American Progress

• summary_investments_and_reach_of_the_usdepartmentofeducation.pdf

• DeptOfEd_2025_StateByState.xlsx - Google Sheets

Identify quality programs that will lose funding, and collect data or stories on the positive impact of the program on kids or families. You’ll want these local examples for your communications with leaders and media. 

In addition to the importance of program level funding which could be lost under a block grant that eliminates 21st CCLC, the quality and capacity building functions of the state level 21st CCLC activity funds would also be lost. Advocates can demonstrate the need for these quality supports and make the case for them to continue through the state education agency's creative use of block grant funding:

• The Federal 21st CCLC program currently supports funding at the federal and state level for quality, professional development, monitoring, and evaluation

• Research shows the impacts of afterschool programs come from students regular attendance in high-quality programs. Programs must have access to training and quality improvement tools to achieve strong outcomes

• A variety of quality assessment tools, staff competency standards, and best practices in program design allow programs to choose their own curriculum and be flexible to local needs while ensuring students have a positive experience that supports their continued development

Keep allies and providers up to date on the possible changes and their impact. When it makes sense, engage them in your strategies. 

What partners are already working closely with districts? 

What partners are already working closely with the SEA? 

• Coordinate with providers and alliances of providers in your state to present a united front

• Work with parent engagement groups to ensure states and districts are reaching out to parents to assess their needs and responding to what parents want. Polling and survey data tell us voters and parents want funding for afterschool and summer programs.  

• In some states, superintendents and school boards may support fewer set-asides for activities like afterschool, preferring to have maximum flexibility at the local level. Work with local superintendents who are champions of afterschool programs and who can make the case to their peers about the need to require afterschool and summer learning through block grant funds.

• Afterschool and summer programs are a platform for arts education, STEM programs, financial literacy, college, workforce and career readiness, nutritious meals and snacks, physical activity and sports, tutoring, mentoring, and more. Reach out to organizations and proponents of these efforts to broaden your coalition of support.