CARES Act Education Stabilization Fund: Background and Analysis

June 3, 2020 – August 6, 2020 R46378

CARES Act Education Stabilization Fund:
August 6, 2020
Background and Analysis
Rebecca R. Skinner
On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act; P.L.
Specialist in Education
116-136) was signed into law. Included in the act was the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF).
Policy
The ESF is composed of three emergency relief funds: (1) a Governor’s Emergency Education

Relief (GEER) Fund, (2) an Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER)
Cassandria Dortch
Fund, and (3) a Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF). The ESF, administered by
Specialist in Education
the U.S. Department of Education (ED), has an appropriations level of $30.750 billion for
Policy
FY2020. These funds are to remain available through September 30, 2021.

From the total appropriation for the ESF, the Secretary of Education is required to reserve up to
Joselynn H. Fountain
0.5% for the outlying areas, 0.5% for the Bureau of Indian Education, and 1% to provide
Analyst in Education Policy
competitive grants to the states with the “highest coronavirus burden” to support activities under

the ESF. The Secretary is required to provide the remainder of the funds to the three emergency
Emma C. Nyhof
education relief funds.
Research Assistant

 GEER Fund: The FY2020 appropriations for this fund are $3.0 billion. The funds will
be awarded to governors based on each state’s share of individuals ages 5 through 24

and each state’s share of children counted under Section 1124(c) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Each governor may choose to use the grants in the following ways: (1)
providing emergency funds to local educational agencies (LEAs), (2) providing emergency funds to
institutions of higher education (IHEs) serving students within the state, and (3) providing emergency funds
to any other IHE, LEA, or education related entity within the state for a broad array of purposes ranging
from any activity authorized under various federal education laws to the provision of child care and early
childhood education, social and emotional support, and the protection of education-related jobs.
 ESSER Fund: The FY2020 appropriations for this fund are $13.2 billion. The funds will be awarded to
states based on their relative shares of grants awarded under Title I-A of the ESEA. State educational
agencies (SEAs) are required to provide at least 90% of the funds to LEAs to be used for myriad purposes
such as any activity authorized under various federal education laws, coordination of preparedness and
response to the coronavirus emergency, technology acquisition, mental health services, and activities
related to summer learning.
 HEERF: The FY2020 appropriations for this fund are $14.0 billion. The majority (90%) of funds are
awarded as direct grants to IHEs based on their pre-coronavirus-emergency relative shares of full-time
equivalent (FTE) Pell Grant recipients not exclusively enrolled in distance education and FTE enrollment
not exclusively enrolled in distance education. At least 50% of each direct grant must be used for
emergency financial aid grants to students. A portion (7.5%) of HEERF funds is made available to IHEs
that are eligible to participate in programs for minority serving institutions (MSIs) authorized under Title
III-A, Title III-B, Title V-A, and Title VII-A-4 of the Higher Education Act (HEA). The remaining 2.5% of
HEERF funds is made available to IHEs through the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary
Education Program (FIPSE) authorized under HEA Title VII-B. Grants under the MSI and FIPSE programs
may be used for emergency financial aid grants to students, to cover costs associated with changes to the
delivery of instruction due to the coronavirus emergency, and to defray institutional expenses.

The ESF also includes provisions requiring that LEAs use funds received under the GEER Fund and the ESSER Fund to
provide equitable services to students and teachers in non-public schools. In addition, any LEA, state, IHE, or other entity
that receives funds under the ESF is required to the greatest extent practicable to pay its employees and contractors during the
period of any disruptions or closures related to the coronavirus emergency. The ESF also includes maintenance of effort
provisions that apply to state funding for elementary and secondary education and for higher education in FY2020 and
FY2021. Funds awarded through the ESF are subject to CARES Act reporting requirements.

Congressional Research Service

link to page 34 CARES Act Education Stabilization Fund: Background and Analysis

Introduction
On March 13, 2020, President Trump declared the COVID-19 outbreak a national emergency,
beginning March 1, 2020.1 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, domestical y or international y.” The ESF is 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)2. The ESF has an appropriations level of $30.750 bil ion for fiscal year
FY20203; these funds are to remain available through September 30, 2021. The ESF is
administered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED).
This report begins with an overview of the appropriations available for the ESF and the required
reservations of funds. It then discusses each of the emergency education relief funds. For the
emergency education relief funds for which ED has published grant amounts (i.e., GEER Fund,
ESSER Fund, and HEERF), ED’s al ocations have been included in this report. This is followed
by an overview of the other provisions included in the ESF: assistance to non-public schools,
continued payments to employees, definitions, and maintenance of effort (MOE) provisions. The
last section of the report discusses reporting requirements included in the CARES Act that apply
to amounts awarded through the emergency education relief funds. Table A-1 in the Appendix
shows grant amounts by state for al three emergency education relief funds.
Reservations of Funds (Section 18001)
From the total FY2020 appropriation for the ESF, the following reservations must be made by the
Secretary of Education (the Secretary):
 up to 0.5% for the outlying areas,4
 0.5% for the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), and
 1% for competitive grants awarded by ED to states with the “highest coronavirus
burden.”5
From the remaining funds, the Secretary is required to make the following reservations for the
three emergency education relief funds:
 9.8% for the GEER Fund,

1 T he White House, “Proclamation on Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease
(COVID-19) Outbreak,” March 13, 2020, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-declaring-
national-emergency-concerning-novel-coronavirus-disease-covid-19-outbreak/; also at U.S. President (T rump),
“Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID–19) Outbreak,” 85 Federal
Register 53, March 18, 2020.
2 T he acronyms used throughout this report are those utilized by the Department of Education in ESF-related materials.
3 T he appropriations provided for the ESF have been designated by Congress as being for an emergency requirement
pursuant to Section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
4 T he outlying areas—American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islan ds, Guam, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands—are as defined in Section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended. T he
Secretary is required to allocate up to 0.5% of the total appropriation to the outlying areas on the basis of their relative
need as determined by her, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior.
5 Statutory language does not define “highest coronavirus burden” or indicate how this should be determined.
Congressional Research Service
1

link to page 6 link to page 7 CARES Act Education Stabilization Fund: Background and Analysis

 43.9% for the ESSER Fund, and
 46.3% for the HEERF.
For the purposes of the ESF, the definition of state includes the 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
Table 1 details the amount of funding that must be reserved for the outlying areas, BIE,
competitive grants, and each of the emergency education relief funds.
Table 1. Required Reservations of Funds Under the CARES Act Education
Stabilization Fund
(Dol ars in thousands)
Program
Appropriations
Governor’s Emergency Education Relief Fund
$2,953,230
Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund
$13,229,265
Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund
$13,952,505
Subtotal for emergency education relief funds
$30,135,000
Outlying areas
$153,750
Bureau of Indian Education
$153,750
Competitive grants
$307,500
Subtotal for other reservations of funds
$615,000
Total appropriation
$30,750,000
Source: Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of the CARES Act.
Note: The Secretary is required to al ocate up to 0.5% of the total appropriation to the outlying areas on the
basis of their relative need as determined by her, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior.
Reservation for the Outlying Areas
On May 5, 2020, ED announced that it would award the full 0.5% of the ESF overal
appropriation to the outlying areas.6 ED calculated grant amounts for each outlying area in
accordance with the provisions of the GEER Fund and the ESSER Fund.7 ED is awarding 20% of
the funds available to the outlying areas under the GEER Fund and 80% under the ESSER Fund.
Grant amounts under each fund were determined based on factors that are similar to those used to
determine state grant amounts under each fund (see subsequent discussion of each fund).8 The
grant amounts available to each outlying area are detailed in Table 2. To receive available funds
under the GEER Fund, the governor of an outlying area must submit a Certification and
Agreement document (application) to ED.9 To receive available funds under the ESSER Fund, the

6 U.S. Department of Education, Formula Grants to the Outlying Areas, May 5, 2020, https://oese.ed.gov/offices/
education-stabilization-fund/outlying-areas/.
7 U.S. Department of Education, Education Stabilization Fund Grants to the Outlying Areas, https://oese.ed.gov/files/
2020/05/OA-Allocations-Table.pdf.
8 With respect to the number of individuals ages 5-24 in each of the outlying areas, ED used data from the 2010
Decennial Census as annual data are not available for the outlying areas.
9 A copy of the application is available at https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/05/Governors-ESF-OA-Certification-and-
Agreement.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
2

CARES Act Education Stabilization Fund: Background and Analysis

SEA of an outlying area must submit a Certification and Agreement document.10 Outlying areas
can use funds received under the GEER Fund and ESSER Fund in similar ways as states (see
subsequent discussion of each fund). For each application, the applicant must provide various
assurances, respond to questions about the use of funds, and agree to comply with CARES Act
reporting requirements. In addition to the reservation for the outlying areas, IHEs in the outlying
areas and those in the freely associated states of the Republic of the Marshal Islands, the
Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau are also eligible under the HEERF.
Table 2. Allocations Available to the Outlying Areas Under the Education
Stabilization Fund
Amount for
Amount for SEAs
Percentage
Governors Based
Based on ED’s
Share of Funds
on ED’s GEER
ESSER Fund
Available for the
Outlying Area
Fund Formula
Formula
Total
Outlying Areas
American Samoa
$7,272,191
$38,321,932
$45,594,123
29.65%
Commonwealth of
$4,777,211
$23,163,734
$27,940,945
18.17%
the Northern
Mariana Islands
Guam
$12,499,963
$41,521,997
$54,021,960
35.14%
U.S. Virgin Islands
$6,200,635
$19,992,337
$26,192,972
17.04%
Total
$30,750,000
$123,000,000
$153,750,000
100.00%
Source: Table prepared by CRS based on U.S. Department of Education, Education Stabilization Fund Al ocations
to the Outlying Areas, https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/05/OA-Al ocations-Table.pdf.
Reservation for the Bureau of Indian Education
In accordance with listening sessions with stakeholders, the BIE al otment is disbursed as
follows: 70% to BIE elementary and secondary schools and early childhood education programs,
20% to tribal colleges and universities (TCUs),11 and 10% for emergency needs determined by
the BIE.12 The BIE may reserve up to 0.5% for administrative costs. Elementary and secondary
schools may use the funds in accordance with the ESSER Fund. TCUs may use the funds in
accordance with the HEERF except that funds are not required to be expended for student
grants.13 In addition to the reservation of 0.5% of the ESF for the BIE, TCUs are also separately
eligible to receive funds under the HEERF.

10 A copy of the application is available at https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/05/SEA-ESF-OA-Certification-and-
Agreement.pdf.
11 T ribal colleges and universities include BIE operated postsecondary schools and colleges and universities funded
under the T ribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. §1801 et seq.) and the Navajo
Community College Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. §640a note).
12 U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General, CARES Act Flash Report: Bureau of Indian Education
Snapshot, No. 2020-FIN-050, July 14, 2020.
13 U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of the Interior, Agreement Between the U.S. Department of
Education (DOE) and the U.S. Departm ent of the Interior (DOI) – Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), June 11-12,
2020.
Congressional Research Service
3

CARES Act Education Stabilization Fund: Background and Analysis

Competitive Grants
The CARES Act requires the Secretary to reserve 1% of the total appropriation for the ESF to
provide competitive grants to the states with the “highest coronavirus burden” to support
activities under the ESF. The statutory language does not define “highest coronavirus burden” or
indicate how this should be determined. Within 30 days of enactment of the CARES Act, the
Secretary is required to issue a notice inviting states to apply for the competitive grants. Upon
receipt of an application, the Secretary has 30 days to approve or deny it. The statutory language
does not provide for an appeals process for any state whose application has been denied.
On April 27, 2020, ED announced that two types of competitive grants would be awarded: (1)
$180 mil ion wil be made available for Education Stabilization Fund—Rethink K12 Education
Models Grants (ESF-REM Grants), and (2) $127.5 mil ion wil be made available for Education
Stabilization Fund—Reimagining Workforce Preparation Grants (ESF-RWP Grants).14
Applications to apply for these grants wil be available within two weeks of the date of the
announcement. Applicants wil have 60 days to apply. Al applications wil be evaluated by a
panel of independent peer reviewers.
ESF-REM Grants
The ESF-REM Grant “is aimed at opening new, innovative ways for students to access K-12
education with an emphasis on meeting students’ needs during the coronavirus national
emergency.”15 According to the notice that ED intends to post in the Federal Register, awards
wil be made to states for “activities to help prevent, prepare for, and respond to the devastating
effects of COVID-19.”16 Each SEA can submit only one application and must apply to use ESF-
REM Grants under one of three absolute priorities established by ED:
1. microgrants17 to parents to meet the educational needs of their school-age
children, through increased access to high-quality remote learning to support
their educational needs;
2. development or expansion of a high-quality course-access program or statewide
virtual school; and

14 U.S. Department of Education, “Secretary DeVos Launches New Grant Competition to Spark Student -Centered,
Agile Learning Opportunities to Support Recovery from National Emergency,” press release, April 27, 2020,
https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/secretary-devos-launches-new-grant -competition-spark-student -centered-agile-
learning-opportunities-support-recovery-national-emergency.
15 U.S. Department of Education, “ Secretary DeVos Launches New Grant Competition to Spark Student -Centered,
Agile Learning Opportunities to Support Recovery from National Emergency,” press release, April 27, 2020,
https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/secretary-devos-launches-new-grant -competition-spark-student -centered-agile-
learning-opportunities-support-recovery-national-emergency.
16 U.S. Department of Education, Notice Inviting Application (NIA) for the FY 2020 Education Stabilization Fund—
Rethink K-12 Education Models (ESF-REM) Discretionary Grant Program, Notice for posting in the Federal Regist er,
April 27, 2020, https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/04/ESF-REM-Notice-Inviting-Applications.pdf, p. 3 (hereinafter referred
to as “ESF-REM notice”).
17 T he notice defines a microgrant as “an account established for a parent that provides funds directly to service
providers to expand educational choice. T he parent must have easy access to and visibility into the account and it must
allow the parent to select particular education services, expenses, or materials, to expand the ability to choose high -
quality educational opportunities to meet their needs” (ESF-REM notice, p. 17).
Congressional Research Service
4

CARES Act Education Stabilization Fund: Background and Analysis

3. new, field-initiated models for providing remote education to meet the specific
educational needs of the state.18
For applicants choosing to provide microgrants under the first absolute priority,19 a state must
provide parents and students with a list of service providers from which the parents and students
may select. The list must include more than one education service for remote learning. The notice
includes examples of 11 possible remote learning options that could be made available:
1. tuition and fees for a public or private course or program, especial y online;
2. concurrent and dual enrollment at a postsecondary institution particularly for
career and technical education experiences;
3. special education and related services including therapies;
4. contracted educational services provide by a public or nonpublic school;
5. tutoring;
6. summer or afterschool education programs;
7. testing preparation and examination fees, including Advanced Placement
examinations, industry certification exams, state licensure exams, and any
examinations related to college or university admission;
8. academic, college, and career counseling services;
9. application fees, including for public and non-public school students;
10. textbooks, curricula, or other instructional materials; and
11. other education-related services and materials that are reasonable and necessary,
which may include (but cannot be the only use of the microgrant) computer
hardware, software, or other technological devices, including adaptive devices;
internet access or hotspots; or textbooks, curricula, or other instructional
materials.
The state must provide an online and other method to al ow parents and students to select
services, ensure that microgrant accounts are established within the project period of the grant,
and ensure that each parent is aware of how much funding is available. The state must also
establish a parent involvement and feedback process that, for example, describes a way for
parents to request services and providers that are not currently offered and to have input on the
creation of the list of services and providers. It must also include a “fair and documented”20
process for selecting which students wil be served if requests for services from the parents of
public and non-public school students exceeds capacity. The state must also ensure that at least
80% of the grant funds are used for services that are directly utilized by public and non-public
school students under the microgrants. No more than 5% of the funds may be used for
administration.
For a state choosing the second absolute priority,21 it can develop or expand a statewide virtual
learning or course access program, provided that it also proposes to implement either a statewide
course-access program or virtual school. The state’s application also must propose to widely
disseminate information on the availability of course-access programs or virtual school programs.

18 ESF-REM notice, pp. 4-5.
19 ESF-REM notice, pp. 6-10.
20 ESF-REM notice, p. 9.
21 ESF-REM notice, pp. 10-12.
Congressional Research Service
5

CARES Act Education Stabilization Fund: Background and Analysis

Additional y, it must include a parent involvement and feedback process that, for example,
describes a way for parents to request courses or programming that are not currently offered and
to provide input on services provided through the project.
Under the third absolute priority,22 applications should “propose projects that demonstrate a
rationale and that are designed to create, develop, implement, replicate, or take to scale field-
initiated educational models for remote learning.”23 Proposed projects should address specific
needs related to accessing high-quality remote learning opportunities.
In addition, the notice states that an applicant must ensure equitable access for non-public school
students under the absolute priority that it proposes to address.24 The notice defines this to mean
providing students in non-public schools “with the same opportunity to access program benefits
as students attending public schools, which may include proportional provision of services to both
public and non-public school students.”25
According to the notice, ED anticipates making 13-14 awards—approximately four awards under
each of the priorities—depending on the quality of the applications. Award sizes are expected to
range from $5 mil ion to $20 mil ion, with an average grant size of $15 mil ion. The project
period for the grants wil be up to 36 months.26 Successful applicants are required to meet
reporting requirements included in Section 15011 of the CARES Act.27
Applications wil be reviewed and assigned a score of up to 100 points. Of these, up to 40 points
wil be based on the coronavirus burden in each state. Under the requirements of Section 18001
of the CARES Act, the Secretary is required to provide competitive grants to the states with the
“highest coronavirus burden” to support activities under the ESF. For the purposes of the ESF-
REM grants, ED has established a series of four metrics to determine the coronavirus burden in
each state:28 the (1) percentage of the population without broadband access, (2) percentage of
students ages 5-17 in poverty, (3) state percentage share of confirmed COVID-19 cases per
capita, and (4) percentage of students in rural LEAs. ED has indicated that the third indicator wil
be updated as of the application due date. These four metrics wil account for half of a state’s
coronavirus burden score (i.e., up to 20 points).29 The other half of the state’s coronavirus burden
score wil be determined based on data provided by each state (e.g., coronavirus-related deaths
per capita)30 in its grant application. The remaining 60 points wil be based on the quality of
project services and project plan (up to 35 points) and the quality of the management plan and
adequacy of resources (up to 25 points).

22 ESF-REM notice, pp. 12-13.
23 ESF-REM notice, p. 13.
24 ESF-REM notice, p. 13.
25 ESF-REM notice, p. 15.
26 ESF-REM notice, p. 23.
27 ESF-REM notice, p. 34.
28 U.S. Department of Education, Education Stabilization Fund—Rethink K12 Education Models Discretionary Grants,
https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/07/ESF-REM-Burden-Methodology-Appendix-FINAL-6.29.20.pdf.
29 ESF-REM notice, pp, 27-28.
30 ESF-REM notice, p. 20.
Congressional Research Service
6

link to page 6 CARES Act Education Stabilization Fund: Background and Analysis

Grant Awards31
Overal , 39 SEAs applied for ESF-REM grants. Of these, 11 received an award. Of the six
applicants that applied under the first absolute priority, two SEAs (Louisiana and Tennessee)
received grants. Of the 14 applicants that applied under the second absolute priority, four SEAs
(Georgia, Iowa, Rhode Island, and Texas) received grants. Of the 19 applicants that applied under
the third absolute priority, five SEAs (Maine, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, and
South Dakota) received grants. The average grant award was $16.4 mil ion. Grant amounts
ranged from $6.9 mil ion for South Dakota to $20 mil ion for Tennessee. The project period for
al grants is scheduled to run through July 31, 2023.
ESF-RWP Grants
These grants are “designed to expand short-term postsecondary programs and work-based
learning programs in order to get Americans back to work and help smal businesses return to
being our country’s engines for economic growth.”32 According to the notice that ED intends to
publish in the Federal Register,33 the priorities for the competition wil be included in the
supplemental notice inviting application. ED anticipates making 8-9 awards. Award sizes are
expected to range from $5 mil ion to $20 mil ion, with an average grant size of $15 mil ion. The
project period for the grants wil be up to 36 months.34 Eligible applicants wil be specified in the
supplemental notice and may include state economic development or workforce agencies.35
For the purposes of the ESF-RWP grants, ED plans to determine a state’s coronavirus burden
based upon objective measures included in the application package, which wil be specified in a
supplemental notice.36 The measures wil include initial unemployment claims filed as a
percentage of the civilian labor force and the state percentage share of confirmed coronavirus
cases per capita, and any measures identified and provided by the applicant (e.g., other public
health measures such as coronavirus deaths per capita).
Governor’s Emergency Education Relief Fund
(Section 18002)
As detailed in Table 1, almost $3.0 bil ion is available for the GEER Fund. The Secretary is
required to make grants under this fund to the governor of each state with an approved
application. Similar to the competitive grants, the Secretary is required to issue a notice inviting

31 T he information discussed in this section is available from U.S. Department of Education, Education Stabilization
Fund: Rethink K-12 Education Models Discretionary Grant Program Award Fact Sheet, July 2020, https://oese.ed.gov/
files/2020/07/ESF-REM-Award-Fact -Sheet -7.29.20_FINAL.pdf.
32 U.S. Department of Education, “Secretary DeVos Launches New Grant Competition to Spark Student -Centered,
Agile Learning Opportunities to Support Recovery from National Emergency,” press release, April 27, 2020,
https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/secretary-devos-launches-new-grant -competition-spark-student -centered-agile-
learning-opportunities-support-recovery-national-emergency.
33 U.S. Department of Education, Not ice Inviting Applications (NIA) for the FY 2020 Education Stabilization Fund—
Reimagining Workforce Preparation (ESF-RWP) Discretionary Grants Program, Notice for publication in the Federal
Register, April 27, 2020, https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/04/ESF-RWP-Notice-Inviting-Applications.pdf, p. 3
(hereinafter referred to as the “ESF-RWP notice”).
34 ESF-RWP notice, p. 5.
35 ESF-RWP notice, p. 6.
36 ESF-RWP notice, pp. 2-4.
Congressional Research Service
7

link to page 12 CARES Act Education Stabilization Fund: Background and Analysis

states to apply for the grants within 30 days of enactment of the CARES Act. Upon receipt of an
application, the Secretary has 30 days to approve or deny it. The statutory language does not
provide for an appeals process for any state whose application has been denied.
ED has posted the certification and agreement form that governors must complete to receive
GEER Funds.37 The form must be returned to ED by June 1, 2020. As part of this application, a
governor must provide programmatic, fiscal, and reporting assurances as wel as information
about how he or she intends to use the funds.
Formula and State Grants
The funds available for the GEER Fund are to be awarded to states based on two formula factors:
(1) 60% wil be awarded based on each state’s share of individuals ages 5 through 24 relative to
the total number of individuals in this age group in al states; and (2) 40% wil be awarded based
on each state’s share of children counted under Section 1124(c) of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) relative to the total number of children counted under this section for al
states. Population estimates for the first factor were available from the U.S. Census Bureau for
2018. Data for the second factor are based on formula child counts used to determine Title I-A
grants under the ESEA. These state counts consist of children who are ages 5-17 (1) living in
families in poverty, according to estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Smal Area Income
and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) program; (2) in institutions for neglected or delinquent children
or in foster homes; and (3) in families receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) payments with income above the federal poverty level.
Table 3 presents state grant amounts under the GEER Fund based on information available from
ED.
Table 3. State Grants Based on the CARES Act Governor’s Emergency Education
Relief Fund
(Dol ars in thousands)
Percentage
Share of
Total Funds
State Grant
Available for
State
Amount
State Grants
Alabama
$48,851
1.65%
Alaska
$6,504
0.22%
Arizona
$69,196
2.34%
Arkansas
$30,664
1.04%
California
$355,227
12.03%
Colorado
$44,005
1.49%
Connecticut
$27,882
0.94%
Delaware
$7,917
0.27%
District of Columbia
$5,808
0.20%
Florida
$173,586
5.88%

37 T he certification and agreement form is available at https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/04/GEER-Certification-and-
Agreement.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
8

CARES Act Education Stabilization Fund: Background and Analysis

Percentage
Share of
Total Funds
State Grant
Available for
State
Amount
State Grants
Georgia
$105,721
3.58%
Hawai
$9,993
0.34%
Idaho
$15,676
0.53%
Il inois
$108,498
3.67%
Indiana
$61,591
2.09%
Iowa
$26,217
0.89%
Kansas
$26,274
0.89%
Kentucky
$43,799
1.48%
Louisiana
$50,277
1.70%
Maine
$9,274
0.31%
Maryland
$45,658
1.55%
Massachusetts
$50,844
1.72%
Michigan
$89,433
3.03%
Minnesota
$43,427
1.47%
Mississippi
$34,663
1.17%
Missouri
$54,643
1.85%
Montana
$8,764
0.30%
Nebraska
$16,358
0.55%
Nevada
$26,477
0.90%
New Hampshire
$8,891
0.30%
New Jersey
$68,865
2.33%
New Mexico
$22,263
0.75%
New York
$164,286
5.56%
North Carolina
$95,639
3.24%
North Dakota
$5,933
0.20%
Ohio
$104,917
3.55%
Oklahoma
$39,919
1.35%
Oregon
$32,508
1.10%
Pennsylvania
$104,418
3.54%
Puerto Rico
$47,812
1.62%
Rhode Island
$8,704
0.29%
South Carolina
$48,468
1.64%
South Dakota
$7,944
0.27%
Tennessee
$63,582
2.15%
Texas
$307,026
10.40%
Congressional Research Service
9

CARES Act Education Stabilization Fund: Background and Analysis

Percentage
Share of
Total Funds
State Grant
Available for
State
Amount
State Grants
Utah
$29,190
0.99%
Vermont
$4,489
0.15%
Virginia
$66,775
2.26%
Washington
$56,769
1.92%
West Virginia
$16,353
0.55%
Wisconsin
$46,550
1.58%
Wyoming
$4,701
0.16%
Total appropriation
$2,953,230
100.00%
Source: Prepared by CRS based on data available from the U.S. Department of Education, Governor’s
Emergency Education Relief Fund, State Al ocation Table, available at https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/04/GEER-
Fund-State-Al ocations-Table.pdf.
Notes: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Percentages were calculated based on unrounded
numbers.
Uses of Funds
Grants awarded to governors from the GEER Fund may be used for educational services in three
areas:
 A governor may choose to provide emergency funds to LEAs that the SEA
“deems have been most significantly impacted by coronavirus” to support these
LEAs in providing educational services to their students and to support the “on-
going functionality” of the LEA. Similar to the competitive grants, statutory
language does not include a definition for “most significantly impacted by
coronavirus” or provide any metrics by which this should be determined. Thus,
the criteria used by SEAs to identify LEAs that are eligible to receive emergency
education relief funds may differ from state-to-state.
 A governor may choose to provide emergency funds to IHEs serving students
within the state that he or she determines to “have been most significantly
impacted by coronavirus” to support these IHEs in providing educational services
and to support the “on-going functionality” of the IHE. Similar to the competitive
grants and the grants to LEAs, statutory language does not include a definition
for “most significantly impacted by coronavirus” or provide any metrics by
which this should be determined. Thus, the criteria used by the governors to
identify IHEs that are eligible to receive emergency education relief funds may
differ from state-to-state.
 A governor may choose to provide emergency funds to any other IHE, LEA, or
education-related entity within the state that he or she deems “essential for
carrying out emergency educational services” to students for any activity
authorized by the ESEA;38 the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

38 T he statutory language specifically mentions that the uses of funds under the ESEA include the uses permitted under
Congressional Research Service
10

link to page 6 CARES Act Education Stabilization Fund: Background and Analysis

(IDEA); the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act; the Carl D. Perkins Career
and Technical Education Act of 2006, as amended (Perkins V); Title VII-B of the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (Homeless Education); or the Higher
Education Act (HEA). Grants may also be awarded to IHEs, LEAs, or education-
related entities for the provision of child care and early childhood education,
social and emotional support, and the protection of education-related jobs. The
determination of what qualifies an entity as essential for carrying out emergency
educational services to students is not defined in statutory language. Thus, the
criteria used by governors to identify these entities may vary from state-to-state.
As part of the assurances that each governor must provide to ED in the GEER Fund application,39
the governor must assure ED that the state wil submit, within 45 days of receiving its grants, an
initial report that details how the state wil award funds to LEAs, IHEs, and other education-
related entities. This must include the criteria the state wil use for determining those entities that
are “most significantly impacted by coronavirus” or “essential for carrying out emergency
educational services.” The state must also provide a description of the process and deliberations
involved in developing these criteria.
In addition, a governor must include an assurance that the state wil comply with the reporting
requirements included in Section 15011(b)(2) of Division B of the CARES Act40 and submit
quarterly reports to the Secretary containing such information as the Secretary may reasonably
require. In the application for the GEER Fund, ED notes that reporting may include, for example,
information on the specific entities awarded funds; the uses of those funds by the SEA, LEAs,
IHEs, and other educational entities; and the number of public and non-public schools that
received funds or services.
Reallocation of Funds
Any funds that a governor does not award within one year of receiving them must be returned to
the Secretary. The Secretary is required to real ocate such funds to the remaining states based on
the formula used to provide the initial amounts.
Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief
Fund (Section 18003)
As shown in Table 1, approximately $13.2 bil ion is available for the ESSER Fund. The
Secretary is required to make ESSER Fund grants to each SEA with an approved application.
Similar to the GEER Fund grants, the Secretary is required to issue a notice inviting states to
apply for the grants within 30 days of enactment of the CARES Act. Upon receipt of an
application, the Secretary has 30 days to approve or deny it. The statutory language does not
provide for an appeals process for any state whose application has been denied.

the Native Hawaiian Education Act and the Alaska Native Educational Equity, Support, and Assistance Act. Both acts
are included in the ESEA, as T itle VI-B and T itle VI-C, respectively.
39 T he certification and agreement form is available at https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/04/GEER-Certification-and-
Agreement.pdf.
40 See subsequent discussion of CARES Act reporting requirements.
Congressional Research Service
11

link to page 16 CARES Act Education Stabilization Fund: Background and Analysis

Formula and State Grants
The amount available for the ESSER Fund is to be awarded to states based on their relative shares
of grants awarded under Title I-A of the ESEA for the most recent fiscal year. As ED has not yet
awarded FY2020 Title I-A grants, these CRS estimates used FY2019 Title I-A grant amounts for
the most recent fiscal year. The ESEA requires that Title I-A grant amounts used to determine
other formula grants to states be calculated assuming no hold harmless provisions are applied.41
Thus, ED calculated state grants for the ESSER Fund using FY2019 Title I-A grants with no hold
harmless provisions applied.
After reserving up to 10% of the funds received by the state,42 each state is required to make
subgrants to LEAs in proportion to each LEA’s share of Title I-A grants made to al LEAs in the
state during the most recent fiscal year. As with the state grants, the ESEA requires that Title I-A
grant amounts used to determine other formula grants to LEAs be calculated with no hold
harmless provisions applied.
Table 4 presents state grant amounts under the ESSER Fund prepared by ED.
Table 4. State Grants for the CARES Act Elementary and Secondary School
Emergency Relief Fund
(Dol ars in thousands)
Percentage
Share of
Total Funds
Grant
Available for
State
Amount
State Grants
Alabama
$216,948
1.64%
Alaska
$38,408
0.29%
Arizona
$277,423
2.10%
Arkansas
$128,759
0.97%
California
$1,647,306
12.45%
Colorado
$120,994
0.91%
Connecticut
$111,068
0.84%
Delaware
$43,493
0.33%
District of Columbia
$42,006
0.32%
Florida
$770,248
5.82%
Georgia
$457,170
3.46%
Hawai
$43,385
0.33%
Idaho
$47,855
0.36%

41 T he requirement to determine state grants with no hold harmless provisions applied is in Section 1122(c)(3) of the
ESEA. For more information on T itle I-A formulas, see CRS Report R44461, Allocation of Funds Under Title I-A of
the Elem entary and Secondary Education Act.
42 For the purposes of this report, it was assumed that each state would reserve the full 10% of funds that may be
reserved at the state level. A state may use up to 0.5% of the reserved funds for administrative purposes. T he remainder
of the funds must be used for emergency needs, as determined by the state, to respond to issues related to the
coronavirus emergency.
Congressional Research Service
12

CARES Act Education Stabilization Fund: Background and Analysis

Percentage
Share of
Total Funds
Grant
Available for
State
Amount
State Grants
Il inois
$569,467
4.30%
Indiana
$214,473
1.62%
Iowa
$71,626
0.54%
Kansas
$84,529
0.64%
Kentucky
$193,187
1.46%
Louisiana
$286,980
2.17%
Maine
$43,793
0.33%
Maryland
$207,834
1.57%
Massachusetts
$214,894
1.62%
Michigan
$389,797
2.95%
Minnesota
$140,137
1.06%
Mississippi
$169,883
1.28%
Missouri
$208,443
1.58%
Montana
$41,295
0.31%
Nebraska
$65,085
0.49%
Nevada
$117,185
0.89%
New Hampshire
$37,641
0.28%
New Jersey
$310,371
2.35%
New Mexico
$108,575
0.82%
New York
$1,037,046
7.84%
North Carolina
$396,312
3.00%
North Dakota
$33,298
0.25%
Ohio
$489,205
3.70%
Oklahoma
$160,950
1.22%
Oregon
$121,099
0.92%
Pennsylvania
$523,807
3.96%
Puerto Rico
$349,113
2.64%
Rhode Island
$46,350
0.35%
South Carolina
$216,311
1.64%
South Dakota
$41,295
0.31%
Tennessee
$259,891
1.96%
Texas
$1,285,886
9.72%
Utah
$67,822
0.51%
Vermont
$31,148
0.24%
Virginia
$238,599
1.80%
Congressional Research Service
13

CARES Act Education Stabilization Fund: Background and Analysis

Percentage
Share of
Total Funds
Grant
Available for
State
Amount
State Grants
Washington
$216,892
1.64%
West Virginia
$86,640
0.65%
Wisconsin
$174,778
1.32%
Wyoming
$32,563
0.25%
Total appropriation
$13,229,265
100.00%
Source: Prepared by CRS based on data available from the U.S. Department of Education (ED),
https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/04/ESSER-Fund-State-Al ocations-Table.pdf.
Notes: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Percentages were calculated based on unrounded
numbers.
LEA Uses of Funds
Funds provided to LEAs under the ESSER Fund can be used for a multitude of purposes. LEAs
may use them for any activity authorized by the ESEA,43 the IDEA, the Adult Education and
Family Literacy Act, Perkins V, and the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education program.
In addition to permitting funds to be used for activities authorized under federal education laws
administered by ED, the statutory language authorizes multiple other uses. Many, if not al , of
these additional uses of funds are already permitted under the broad authority to use funds under
various federal education laws and programs. The last option listed below is particularly broad,
authorizing any activities necessary to maintain the operation and continuity of LEA services and
to continue to employ existing LEA staff. The additional authorized uses of funds permit support
for the following activities and services:
 coordinating preparedness and response efforts of LEAs with state, tribal, and
territorial public health departments and other relevant agencies to improve
coordinated responses among such entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to
the coronavirus emergency;
 providing principals and other school leaders with resources to address the needs
of their individual schools;
 addressing the unique needs of low-income children or students, children with
disabilities, English learners, racial and ethnic minorities, students experiencing
homelessness, and foster care youth, including outreach and service delivery
activities that wil meet the needs of each population;
 developing and implementing procedures and systems to improve the
preparedness and response efforts of LEAs;
 training and professional development for LEA staff on sanitation and
minimizing the spread of infectious diseases;

43 T he statutory language specifically mentions that the uses of funds under the ESEA include uses permitted under the
Native Hawaiian Education Act and the Alaska Native Educational Equity, Support, and Assistance Act. Both acts are
included in the ESEA as T itle VI-B and T itle VI-C, respectively.
Congressional Research Service
14

CARES Act Education Stabilization Fund: Background and Analysis

 purchasing supplies to sanitize and clean the LEA’s facilities, including buildings
it operates;
 planning for and coordinating during long-term closures, including how to
provide meals to eligible students, how to provide technology for online learning
to al students, how to provide guidance for carrying out IDEA requirements, and
how to ensure other educational services can continue to be consistent with al
federal, state, and local requirements;
 purchasing education technology (including hardware, software, and
connectivity) for students who are served by the LEA that aids in regular and
substantive educational interaction between classroom instructors and students,
including low-income students and students with disabilities, which may include
assistive technology or adaptive equipment;
 providing mental health services and supports;
 planning and implementing activities related to summer learning and
supplemental afterschool programs, including providing classroom instruction or
online learning during the summer months and addressing the needs of low -
income students, students with disabilities, English learners, migrant students,
students experiencing homelessness, and children in foster care; and
 supporting other activities that are necessary to maintain the operation and
continuity of LEA services and to continue to employ existing LEA staff.
State Uses of Funds
Of the funds received by a state that are not subgranted to LEAs, the state may use up to 0.5% of
its al ocation for administrative costs. The remainder of the funds must be used for emergency
needs, as determined by the SEA, to address issues in response to the coronavirus emergency. The
SEA may address these issues through the use of grants and contracts.
Reallocation of Funds
Any funds that a state does not award within one year of receiving them must be returned to the
Secretary. The Secretary is required to real ocate such funds to the remaining states based on the
formula used to provide the initial amounts.
ESSER Fund Application
On April 23, 2020, in a letter to each state commissioner of education, ED announced the
availability of grants under the ESSER Fund and the opening of the application process.44 To
apply, each state must complete a Certification and Agreement form.45 In the letter, ED indicated
that once a state submitted a completed Certification and Agreement form, ED would process the
application and obligate the funds within three business days.
The Certification and Agreement form requires each state to provide programmatic, fiscal, and
reporting assurances. These include, for example, assurances related to the distribution of at least

44 Letter from Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education, to State Commissioner of Education, April 23, 2020,
https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/04/ESSER-Fund-Cover-Letter.pdf.
45 A copy of the Certification and Agreement form is available at https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/04/ESSERF-
Certification-and-Agreement -2.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
15

link to page 6 link to page 20 CARES Act Education Stabilization Fund: Background and Analysis

90% of the funds received to LEAs, and to the statutory requirement that LEAs provide equitable
services to student and teachers in non-public schools. Required assurances also pertain to the
provision of technical assistance to LEAs related to remote learning, and the use of funds retained
by the SEA.
The application further requires the SEA to provide the information that the SEA may request
LEAs to include in their subgrant applications. In addition, it requires the SEA to specify the
extent to which the SEA intends to use funds reserved at the state level to support (1)
technological capacity and access to support remote learning and (2) remote learning by
developing “new informational and academic resources and expanding awareness of, and access
to, best practices and innovations in remote learning and support for students, families, and
educators.”46 A governor must also include an assurance that the state wil comply with the
reporting requirements included in Section 15011(b)(2) of Division B of the CARES Act (see
subsequent discussion of CARES Act reporting requirements) and submit quarterly reports to the
Secretary containing such information as the Secretary may reasonably require. For example,
within 60 days of receipt of funds, the SEA must provide ED with a report that includes a budget
specifying how the SEA wil use funds reserved at the state level.
Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (Section
18004)
As shown in Table 1, approximately $14.0 bil ion is available for the HEERF. The Secretary is
required to al ocate the HEERF through three programs as follows: (1) 90% is to be al ocated as
direct grants to IHEs according to the enrollment of students who were not exclusively enrolled in
distance education courses prior to the coronavirus emergency; (2) 7.5% is to be made available
to programs for minority serving institutions (MSIs) authorized under Title III-A, Title III-B, Title
V-A, and Title VII-A-4 of the Higher Education Act (HEA);47 and (3) 2.5% is to be made
available for the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education Program (FIPSE)
authorized under HEA Title VII-B. An IHE may be eligible to receive an al ocation from more
than one HEERF program; and an IHE may also be eligible to receive funds from the GEER
Fund and the ESF reservations for the outlying areas or BIE, as applicable. Table 5 provides a
breakdown of funding under the HEERF.
Table 5. Appropriations for CARES Act Higher Education Emergency Relief Funds
(Dol ars in thousands)
Program/Purpose
Appropriations
Direct grants to institutions of higher education
$12,557,255
Programs for Minority Serving Institutions
$1,046,438
Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education
$348,813
Total Funding
$13,952,505
Source: CRS analysis of the CARES Act.
Note: Details many not add to totals due to rounding.

46 U.S. Department of Education, Certification and Agreement for Funding under the Education Stabilization Fund
Program Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER Fund), April 2020, https://oese.ed.gov/
files/2020/04/ESSERF-Certification-and-Agreement -2.pdf.
47 For more information on Programs for Minority Serving Institutions, see CRS Report R43237, Programs for
Minority-Serving Institutions Under the Higher Education Act.
Congressional Research Service
16

CARES Act Education Stabilization Fund: Background and Analysis

Direct Grants to Institutions of Higher Education
The direct grants to IHEs are awarded to public, private nonprofit, proprietary, and postsecondary
vocational IHEs, as defined in Section 102 of the HEA. The funds available for direct grants to
IHEs, approximately $12.6 bil ion, wil be awarded based on two formula factors: (1) 75% is
based on each IHE’s share of full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment of Pel Grant recipients who
were not enrolled exclusively in distance education prior to the coronavirus emergency, relative to
the total FTE enrollment of such individuals in al IHEs;48 and (2) 25% is based on each IHE’s
share of FTE enrollment of students who were not Pel Grant recipients and who were not
enrolled exclusively in distance education prior to the coronavirus emergency, relative to the total
FTE enrollment of such individuals in al IHEs. The first factor primarily al ocates funds based on
undergraduate enrollment because Pel Grant eligibility is limited to undergraduates and students
in postbaccalaureate teacher education programs.49 The second factor al ocates funds based on
undergraduate and graduate enrollment.
On April 9, 2020, ED published IHE al ocations based on an approximation of the factors used in
the statutory formula.50 Because the factors were approximated, ED reserved $50 mil ion for a
subsequent award.51
Programs for MSIs
The HEA authorizes several grant programs to assist IHEs that serve high concentrations of
minority and/or financial y needy students. These programs are col ectively known as the MSI
programs. The CARES Act directs the Secretary to al ocate over $1.0 bil ion to select MSI
programs according to each program’s proportional share of funds al ocated under the Further
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94).52
The CARES Act does not specify how program funds should be distributed among IHEs eligible
to participate in the MSI programs. With the exception of the Strengthening Tribal y Controlled
Colleges and Universities (TCCU) program, the Secretary al ocated funds to each eligible IHE in
accordance with the formula used to al ocate direct grants to IHEs.53 The formula was applied
separately to eligible grantees within each MSI program. To determine an IHE’s eligibility, ED
used its Eligibility Matrix 2020, the most recently published list of IHEs eligible under each of

48 For a description of the Pell Grant program, see CRS Report R45418, Federal Pell Grant Program of the Higher
Education Act: Prim er.
49 Students with a bachelor’s degree may be enrolled at least half-time in a postbaccalaureate teacher education
program. Half-time enrollment is at least six credit hours in a standard semester. A postbaccalaureate teacher education
program does not lead to a graduate degree, is offered by a school that does not also offer a bachelor’s degree in
education, and leads to certification or licensure necessary for employment as an elementary or secondary sc hool
teacher in the state. T o be eligible for a Pell Grant, the student enrolled in the postbaccalaureate teacher education
program must be pursuing an initial teacher certification or licensing credential within the state.
50 Department of Education, “ CARES Act: Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund,” https://www2.ed.gov/about/
offices/list/ope/caresact.html (accessed April 15, 2020).
51 ED requires IHEs to apply and submit their AY2018-2019 enrollments, or AY2019-2020 enrollments if there was no
AY2018-2019 enrollment, to ED by August 15, 2020.
52 In FY2020, the Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program (MSEIP) authorized under HEA T itle III -E
received $12.8 million in discretionary appropriations. T he CARES Act does not authorize the Secretary to allocate
funds to the MSEIP; thus, the program was not included in this analysis.
53 For more information on the methodology used to allocate the funding, see Department of Educat ion, Methodology
for Calculating Allocations for Section 18004(a)(2) of the CARES Act, https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/
methodologyhbcumsitccusip.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
17

link to page 22 CARES Act Education Stabilization Fund: Background and Analysis

the MSI programs.54 In cases where an IHE is eligible under more than one MSI program, ED
al ocated to the IHE the aggregate amount it would receive under each program. ED initial y
utilized the same methodology for the TCCU program. However, at the request of eligible
TCCUs, ED revised its methodology based on the formula used to al ocate annual appropriations
to TCCUs as described in Section 316 of the HEA.55 The Secretary has reserved a portion of the
funds for eligible IHEs that were not listed in the Eligibility Matrix 2020.
Table 6 provides a list of the MSI programs that were al ocated funding, as wel as the amount
made available under each program through the HEERF.
Table 6. Minority-Serving Institutions Program Allocations for the CARES Act
Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund
(Dol ars in thousands)
Program
Estimated Allocation
Strengthening Institutions Program (HEA, Title III-A)
$148,619
Strengthening American Indian Tribal y Control ed Col eges and Universities (HEA, Title
III-A)
$50,469
Strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawai an-Serving Institutions (HEA, Title III-A)
$24,735
Strengthening Predominantly Black Institutions (HEA, Title III-A)

$17,818
Strengthening Native American-Serving, Nontribal Institutions (HEA, Title III-A)
$6,000
Strengthening Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions
(HEA, Title III-A)
$6,123
Strengthening Historical y Black Col eges and Universities (HBCUs) (HEA, Title III-B)
$447,466
Strengthening Historical y Black Graduate Institutions (HEA, Title III-B)
$115,720
Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HEA, Title V-A)
$193,180
Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for Hispanic Americans (HEA, Title V-B)
$17,333
Masters Degrees at HBCUs (HEA, Title VII-A-4)
$13,716
Subtotal
$1,038,057
Reserve for subsequent awards
$8.381
Total
$1,046,438
Source: Prepared by CRS based on al ocations published by the U.S. Department of Education (ED), Formula
Al ocations for Section 18004(a)(2) of CARES Act published at https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/
al ocationshbcutccumsisip.xlsx.

54 T he Eligibility Matrix 2020 is available at https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/idues/eligibility.html#tips.
55 In general, 60% of appropriated funds are distributed among eligible T CCUs on a pro rata basis, based on the
respective Indian student counts. T he remaining 40% are distributed in equal shares to T CCUs. T he amount distributed
shall not be less than $500,000. When applying the formula to the HEERF funds, ED described its methodology as
providing a base amount to all T CCUs and then allocating the remaining amount according to each T CCU’s total
Indian student count.
Congressional Research Service
18

link to page 23 link to page 24 link to page 24 CARES Act Education Stabilization Fund: Background and Analysis

FIPSE
The CARES Act directs the Secretary to al ocate approximately $348.8 mil ion to public and
private nonprofit IHEs that the Secretary determines to have the greatest unmet needs related to
the coronavirus emergency.56 The Secretary is required to give priority to IHEs that do not
otherwise receive grants of at least $500,000 through the HEERF. The Secretary has indicated
that IHEs that received less than $500,000 in aggregate from the direct grants to IHEs and MSI
programs are eligible to receive an award under the FIPSE fund sufficient to receive a total of
$500,000.57 The remaining FIPSE fund (approximately $15 mil ion) wil be awarded
competitively.58
Aggregated Allocations
Table 7 and Table 8 present aggregations of IHE al ocations at the sector and state levels,
respectively, for funds made available under the HEERF. ED published a sector-level summary of
the Direct Grants.59 To facilitate state- and sector-level reporting of the remaining al ocations,
CRS, using data available from ED’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS),
matched each IHE receiving an al ocation with its state and institutional sector (e.g., public two-
year).60
Table 7. Estimated Allocations to IHEs Aggregated at the Sector Level for the
CARES Act Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund
(Dol ars in thousands)
Estimated
IHE
Allocations
MSI
FIPSE
under
Sector
Direct Grantsa
Programs
Program
HEERF
Public, less than two-year
$40,319
NA
$72,112
$112,431
Public, two-year
$2,655,312
$194,971
$21,883
$2,872,165
Public, four-year
$6,208,906
$651,334
$4,672
$6,864,913
Private not-for-profit, less than two-year
$11,121
NA
$12,959
$24,080
Private not-for-profit, two-year
$31,470
$3,622
$33,579
$68,671

56 Eligibility for FIPSE, as authorized by HEA, is limited to IHEs as defined in HEA Section 101, and thus excludes
proprietary IHEs and postsecondary vocational institutions.
57 Letter from Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education, to College and University Presidents, April 30, 2020,
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/coverletterhbcumsisiptccu.pdf.
58 Ibid.
59 Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, “Eligibility of Students at Institut ions of Higher
Education for Funds Under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, ” 85 Federal Register
36494-36504, June 17, 2020.
60 IPEDS is a series of surveys conducted annually by ED to gather institutional data on a variety of t opics—including
student outcomes, student demographics, and institutional finances—from those IHEs that participate in the T itle IV
aid programs. IHEs that do not participate in the T itle IV programs may also report to IPEDS. Although IHEs receiving
an allocation may include branch campuses, additional locations, and other entities that cross state lines, the state in
which an IHE’s main campus is located was assigned to it (Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics, Report and Suggestions from IPEDS Technical Review Panel #43: Defining an IPEDS Institutions
(Part 2), 2014, p. 2, https://edsurveys.rti.org/IPEDS_T RP_DOCS/prod/documents/
T RP_43_Report_and_Suggestions.pdf).
Congressional Research Service
19

link to page 24 CARES Act Education Stabilization Fund: Background and Analysis

Estimated
IHE
Allocations
MSI
FIPSE
under
Sector
Direct Grantsa
Programs
Program
HEERF
Private not-for-profit, four-year
$2,441,436
$188,129
$176,482
$2,806,048
Proprietary, less than two-year
$314,170
NA
NA
$314,170
Proprietary, two-year
$415,718
NA
NA
$415,718
Proprietary, four-year
$388,802
NA
NA
$388,802
Subtotal
$12,507,255
$1,038,057
$321,687
$13,866,998
Reserve for subsequent award
$50,000
$8,381
$27,125
$85,507
Total
$12,557,255
$1,046,438
$348,813
$13,952,505
Source: Prepared by CRS based on an aggregation of al ocations published by the U.S. Department of Education
(ED), Formula Al ocations for Section 18004 of the CARES Act, available at https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/
list/ope/caresact.html as of May 1, 2020; Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, “Eligibility
of Students at Institutions of Higher Education for Funds Under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security (CARES) Act,” 85 Federal Register 36494-36504, June 17, 2020; and Integrated Postsecondary Education
Data System (IPEDS) data to facilitate aggregations.
Notes: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. IHE = institution of higher education. NA indicates that
under HEA less than two-year IHEs and proprietary IHEs are not eligible for the MSI programs and proprietary
IHEs are not eligible for the FIPSE programs.
a. ED published in the Federal Register a summary of Direct Grant amounts to be al ocated to institutions by
sector.
Table 8. Estimated Allocations to IHEs Aggregated at the State Level for the CARES
Act Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund
(Dol ars in thousands)
Estimated
Percentage
IHE
Share of
Allocations
Total
MSI
FIPSE
under
HEERF
State
Direct Grants
Programs
Program
HEERF
Funds
Alabama
$195,872
$73,067
$1,860
$270,799
1.94%
Alaska
$9,432
$3,294
$1,235
$13,961
0.10%
Arizona
$287,601
$13,007
$2,703
$303,312
2.17%
Arkansas
$120,858
$14,573
$1,846
$137,277
0.98%
California
$1,707,163
$82,847
$32,776
$1,822,786
13.06%
Colorado
$167,984
$4,762
$3,794
$176,540
1.27%
Connecticut
$141,283
$2,305
$2,324
$145,912
1.05%
Delaware
$34,027
$11,888
$1,235
$47,150
0.34%
District of Columbia
$47,649
$8,000
$2,236
$57,885
0.41%
Florida
$739,884
$68,094
$14,238
$822,216
5.89%
Georgia
$406,119
$57,515
$2,994
$466,628
3.34%
Hawai
$31,026
$22,380
$200
$53,605
0.38%
Congressional Research Service
20

CARES Act Education Stabilization Fund: Background and Analysis

Estimated
Percentage
IHE
Share of
Allocations
Total
MSI
FIPSE
under
HEERF
State
Direct Grants
Programs
Program
HEERF
Funds
Idaho
$60,036
$1,087
$370
$61,493
0.44%
Il inois
$438,647
$11,999
$13,068
$463,714
3.32%
Indiana
$235,548
$4,035
$4,285
$243,868
1.75%
Iowa
$119,776
$2,365
$3,012
$125,153
0.90%
Kansas
$104,951
$5,933
$2,666
$113,550
0.81%
Kentucky
$156,808
$6,370
$2,708
$165,887
1.19%
Louisiana
$189,864
$49,503
$1,908
$241,275
1.73%
Maine
$41,093
$1,145
$1,802
$44,040
0.32%
Maryland
$188,939
$46,645
$3,202
$238,786
1.71%
Massachusetts
$282,869
$4,895
$11,998
$299,762
2.15%
Michigan
$354,834
$7,735
$6,135
$368,705
2.64%
Minnesota
$183,849
$6,986
$4,242
$195,078
1.40%
Mississippi
$149,058
$55,147
$918
$205,123
1.47%
Missouri
$205,995
$11,737
$13,837
$231,569
1.66%
Montana
$31,873
$8,417
$715
$41,006
0.29%
Nebraska
$67,223
$1,447
$1,166
$69,836
0.50%
Nevada
$70,279
$3,133
$809
$74,221
0.53%
New Hampshire
$41,109
$367
$2,172
$43,648
0.31%
New Jersey
$323,081
$11,945
$11,117
$346,142
2.48%
New Mexico
$62,283
$13,408
$1,096
$76,787
0.55%
New York
$920,624
$28,275
$42,722
$991,621
7.11%
North Carolina
$378,297
$87,942
$5,292
$471,532
3.38%
North Dakota
$23,287
$7,219
$1,319
$31,825
0.23%
Ohio
$395,616
$10,779
$25,062
$431,457
3.09%
Oklahoma
$159,882
$12,656
$7,984
$180,522
1.29%
Oregon
$127,113
$3,587
$4,227
$134,927
0.97%
Pennsylvania
$488,108
$12,892
$25,753
$526,753
3.78%
Rhode Island
$64,731
$1,653
$445
$66,829
0.48%
South Carolina
$180,498
$25,729
$855
$207,081
1.48%
South Dakota
$27,147
$7,284
$1,960
$36,390
0.26%
Tennessee
$237,170
$30,400
$9,177
$276,746
1.98%
Texas
$1,022,021
$114,888
$10,637
$1,147,546
8.22%
Utah
$145,933
$3,934
$1,465
$151,332
1.08%
Vermont
$21,566
$340
$2,374
$24,280
0.17%
Virginia
$294,391
$41,014
$8,446
$343,851
2.46%
Congressional Research Service
21

CARES Act Education Stabilization Fund: Background and Analysis

Estimated
Percentage
IHE
Share of
Allocations
Total
MSI
FIPSE
under
HEERF
State
Direct Grants
Programs
Program
HEERF
Funds
Washington
$225,831
$4,993
$2,413
$233,238
1.67%
West Virginia
$66,559
$6,139
$9,359
$82,057
0.59%
Wisconsin
$176,734
$3,991
$3,700
$184,425
1.32%
Wyoming
$13,586
$29
$79
$13,694
0.10%
American Samoa
$1,618
$6
$0
$1,624
0.01%
Federated States of Micronesia
$3,640
$14
$0
$3,655
0.03%
Guam
$5,834
$23
$379
$6,237
0.04%
Marshal Islands
$1,957
$8
$0
$1,964
0.01%
Northern Mariana Islands
$1,839
$7
$0
$1,847
0.01%
Palau
$759
$3
$0
$762
0.01%
Puerto Rico
$323,782
$16,347
$3,373
$343,501
2.46%
Virgin Islands
$1,714
$1,875
$0
$3,589
0.03%
Subtotal
$12,507,255
$1,038,057
$321,687
$13,866,998
99.39%
Reserve for subsequent award
$50,000
$8,381
$27,125
$85,507
0.61%
Total
$12,557,255
$1,046,438
$348,813
$13,952,505
100.00%
Source: Prepared by CRS based on an aggregation of al ocations published by the U.S. Department of Education
(ED), Formula Al ocations for Section 18004 of the CARES Act, available at https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/
list/ope/caresact.html as of May 1, 2020; and on the use of Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System
(IPEDS) data to facilitate aggregations. Isaac Nicchitta, CRS Research Assistant, contributed to the analysis of
data presented in this table.
Notes: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. IHE = institution of higher education. An IHE’s state is
determined by the location of its main campus, as designated in IPEDS.
IHE Uses of Funds
In order to receive HEERF funds, IHEs must submit a Certification and Agreement to the
Secretary. The Certification and Agreement establishes the terms and conditions for receipt of
funds. The Secretary has required that the IHEs requesting grants under the MSI and FIPSE
programs submit the Certification and Agreement by August 1, 2020.
Funds disbursed under the direct grants to IHEs must be used to provide emergency financial aid
grants to students and may be used to cover any institutional costs associated with significant
changes to the delivery of instruction due to the coronavirus emergency.61 Institutional costs may
include coronavirus-related refunds made to students for housing, food, or other services that

61 T he CARES Act prohibits IHEs from using funds for paying contractors to provide pre-enrollment recruitment
activities, for endowments, or for capital outlays associated with facilities related to athletics, sectarian instruction, or
religious worship.
Congressional Research Service
22

CARES Act Education Stabilization Fund: Background and Analysis

could no longer be provided, or purchases of hardware, software, or internet connectivity on
behalf of students.62
IHEs must use no less than 50% of their direct grant funds to provide emergency financial aid
grants to students for eligible expenses63 related to the disruption of campus operations as a result
of the coronavirus emergency. IHEs have discretion to determine individual grant amounts and
student eligibility.64 The emergency financial aid grants are not considered federal student aid as
authorized under HEA, Title IV; thus, the amount of the emergency financial aid grant may al ow
a student to receive total aid in excess of his/her cost of attendance.65
The CARES Act does not explicitly establish eligibility criteria for students to receive financial
aid grants under HEERF from their IHE. Actions by the Secretary to limit student eligibility
based on other federal laws have generated some dissent.66 Several Members of Congress have
written to the Secretary opposing ED’s imposition of eligibility requirements as contradicting
congressional intent and harming students.67 Three courts have preliminarily enjoined ED from
applying some or al eligibility requirements to HEERF financial aid grants at specified IHEs, and
that litigation is ongoing.68
HEA Section 484 establishes student eligibility requirements for Title IV aid. For example,
eligible students must be enrolled in or accepted for enrollment in a program leading to a
recognized educational credential (e.g., degree), meet citizenship-related requirements, must not
be enrolled in elementary or secondary school, and must submit a financial aid application to the
Secretary. Under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
(PRWORA), unauthorized immigrants are ineligible for federal public benefits, which include
postsecondary education benefits.69
Funds disbursed under the programs for MSIs and FIPSE may be used to provide grants to
students, and to defray IHE expenses, including lost revenue, reimbursement for expenses already
incurred, technology costs associated with a transition to distance education, faculty and staff

62 U.S. Department of Education, Recipient’s Funding Certification and Agreement for the Institutional Portion of the
Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund Formula Grants Authorized by Section 18004( a)(1) of the Coronavirus Aid,
Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/caresact.html.
63 Eligible expenses include food, housing, course materials, technology, health care, child care, and other expenses
related to a student’s cost of attendance. Cost of attendance is defined in HEA to include estimated costs for tuition and
fees, books and supplies, room and board, dependent care, and other costs in different amounts for different categories
of students.
64 Letter from Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education, to College and University Presidents, April 9, 2020,
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/caresactgrantfundingcoverletterfinal.pdf.
65 Generally, the HEA prohibits a student from receiving HEA, T itle IV aid and other financial assistance in excess of
his/her cost of attendance.
66 Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, “Eligibility of Students at Institutions of Higher
Education for Funds Under the Security (CARES) Act,” 85 Federal Register 36494-36504, June 17, 2020; Department
of Education, “Frequently Asked Questions about the Emergency Financial Aid Grants to Students under Section
18004 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act,” https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/
ope/heerfstudentfaqs.pdf (accessed April 22, 2020).
67 Letter from Michael F. Bennet, United States Senator, Robert Menendez, United States Senator, and Richard J.
Durbin, United States Senator et al. to T he Honorable Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education, April 27, 2020; and Letter
from Eric Swalwell, Member of Congress, Suzanne Bonamici, Member of Congress, and Steve Cohen, Member of
Congress et al. to T he Honorable Betsy DeVos, Secretary, United States Department of Education, April 27, 2020.
68 Washington v. DeVos, No. 2:20-cv-00182-TOR, Order at 36, ECF No. 31; Oakley v. DeVos, No. 4:20-cv-03215-
YGR, Order at 28, ECF No. 44; and Noerand v. DeVos, No. 1:20-cv-11271-LTS.
69 8 U.S.C. §1611(a).
Congressional Research Service
23

CARES Act Education Stabilization Fund: Background and Analysis

training, and payroll. Grants to students under the MSI and FIPSE programs may only be used to
satisfy students’ cost of attendance.70 The Secretary has limited the student grants to individuals
eligible to receive HEA Title IV aid.71 The CARES Act provides Historical y Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCUs) and other MSIs with the authority to use prior funds awarded under HEA
Title III, Title V, and Title VII to prevent, prepare for, and respond to the coronavirus emergency.
Assistance to Non-public Schools (Section 18005)
This section of the report discusses the equitable services provisions included in Section 18005 of
the CARES Act. It also includes a brief discussion of the possible provision of ESF funds directly
to non-public schools.
Equitable Services to Students and Teachers in Non-public Schools
An LEA that receives funds under the GEER Fund or the ESSER Fund is subject to equitable
services requirements. More specifical y, LEAs receiving such funds are required to provide
equitable services to students and teachers in non-public schools, as determined in consultation
with representatives of non-public schools, in the same manner as Section 1117 of the ESEA.
After reserving the required amount of funding to provide services for non-public school students
and teachers, the LEA is then required to provide services that are equitable in comparison to
services provided to public school students and teachers. Services provided to non-public school
students and teachers must be provided in a timely manner. Such services, including materials and
equipment, must be secular, neutral, and nonideological.
Under Section 1117 of the ESEA, an LEA’s determination of how much funding should be
reserved to serve non-public school students is based on the number of low-income students who
reside in the school attendance area of Title I-A public schools in the LEA, regardless of where
those children attend a non-public school (i.e., at a non-public school located inside or outside the
LEA). Funding provided to public schools under Title I-A is based on the percentage of low-
income students enrolled in each school. The LEA in which the non-public school student resides
is responsible for providing services to students in the school that the non-public school student
attends, even if that school is in another LEA.72 The provision of Title I-A services is not limited
to low-income public school or non-public school students.73
In contrast to the approach just described, non-binding guidance from ED74 indicated that the
determination of the share of funds available to serve non-public school students from GEER and

70 Letter from Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education, to College and University Presidents, April 30, 2020,
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/coverletterhbcumsisiptccu.pdf (accessed April 22, 2020).
71 Ibid.
72 An LEA can also provide equitable services to eligible students attending a private school that is part of a group of
private schools by pooling the T itle I-A funds that were generated by students from low-income families who reside in
participating T itle I-A public school attendance areas and attend a private school that is part of the group of private
schools for which funds are being pooled. For more information, see U.S. Department of Education, Title I, Part A of
the Elem entary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as Am ended by the Every Student Succeeds Act: Updated Non -
Regulatory Guidance, October 7, 2019, items B-8 and B-9, https://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/non-public-education/
files/equitable-services-guidance-100419.pdf.
73 With respect to private school students, “in general, to be eligible for T itle I services, a private school child must
reside in a participating T itle I public school attendance area and must be identified by the LEA as low achieving on the
basis of multiple, educationally related, objective criteria” (ibid., Item C-1).
74 ED has removed the guidance from its website, as the guidance does not match the Interim Final Rule that ED
Congressional Research Service
24

CARES Act Education Stabilization Fund: Background and Analysis

ESSER Fund grants received by LEAs should be based on total enrollment in non-public schools
located in the LEA. The guidance explained that al public school students in the LEA are eligible
to be served under the GEER Fund and ESSER Fund. That is, the programs are not limited to
serving low-income public school students, so the required equitable services should not be
limited to low-income non-public school students. In practice, this means that LEAs would
determine the amount of funding to reserve to provide services to non-public school students and
teachers based on the total number of non-public school students enrolled in the LEA relative to
total public and non-public school enrollment. For some LEAs, this may result in them reserving
a substantial y larger percentage of the funds they received under the GEER Fund or ESSER
Fund than they would have reserved if the calculation had been based only on the number of
eligible low-income non-public school students relative to the total number of eligible low-
income non-public and public school students.75
Some Members of Congress indicated that they did not agree that the guidance issued by ED
reflects congressional intent. For example, Senator Lamar Alexander, Chair of the Senate
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, stated that he thought, and that he thinks
that most of Congress also thought, that the LEAs would reserve funds to serve non-public school
students and teachers in the same way that they are reserved under Title I-A. However, he did not
say that Secretary DeVos had exceeded any boundaries in issuing the guidance nor did he commit
to overturning the guidance, which does not have the force of law.76 In addition, several
Democratic Members of Congress sent a letter to Secretary DeVos indicating that they did not
believe that the ED guidance reflects congressional intent.77 The letter argued that the CARES
Act’s reference to the equitable services provision in Section 1117 of the ESEA requires the
determination of how much funding should be reserved to serve students and teachers in non-
public schools to be made based on the number of non-public school students who would be
included in the count of students used to determine funding for equitable services under Title I-A
of the ESEA (i.e., low-income non-public school students) rather than based on the count of al
students attending non-public schools in the LEA.
The letter further stated that if Congress had wanted to have funding determined based on the
number of students attending al non-public schools and have LEAs serve non-public school
teachers and students attending non-public schools located in the LEA, it could have cited the
equitable services provisions included in ESEA Section 8501 rather than Section 1117. Under the
Section 8501 provision, al non-public school students who are eligible to be served by the
relevant program are included in the count used to determine the amount of funding that should
be reserved to serve non-public school students and teachers. In addition, the determination of

published in July. T he guidance is available from the authors of this report upon request.
75 See, for example, Letter from Carissa Moffat Miller, Executive Director, Council of Chief State School Officers, to
Secretary Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education, May 5, 2020, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&
source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwj73ZLI1cfpAhWRgnIEHZugAZoQFjAAegQIBBAB& url=
https%3A%2F%2Fccsso.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2F2020 -05%2FDeVosESLetter050520.pdf&usg=
AOvVaw2GJDElYRfzHpWo8Udl7QSC.
76 Andrew Ujifusa, “Sen. Alexander Splits From Betsy DeVos on COVID-19 Aid to Help Private Schools,” Education
Week, May 21, 2021, http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2020/05/alexander-devos-COVID-aid-private-
schools-CDC-reopening.html.
77 Letter from Robert C. “Bobby” Scott, Chair, Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of Representatives,
Rosa L. DeLauro, Chair, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Health and Human Services, Labor, a nd
Education and Other Related Services, U.S. House of Representatives, and Patty Murray, Ranking Member, Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, U.S. Senate, to T he Honorable Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education, May
20, 2020, https://edlabor.house.gov/imo/media/doc/2020-5-
20%20Ltr%20to%20DeVos%20re%20Equitable%20Services.pdf .
Congressional Research Service
25

CARES Act Education Stabilization Fund: Background and Analysis

eligible non-public school students is based on the number of eligible non-public school students
attending non-public schools in an LEA.
Section 10604 of the Heroes Act (), asH.R. 6800 passed by the House, would amend Section
18005 of the CARES Act to include a formula to determine the share of funds that must be
reserved by LEAs to serve non-public school students and teachers. The formula included in the
Heroes Act would require LEAs to reserve funds to serve non-public school students and teachers
based on the number of low-income non-public school students counted under Section 1117 for
the 2019-2020 school year relative to the number of low-income public school students included
in the Section 1117 calculation during the 2019-2020 school year. This also differs from the way
that the reservation of funds for equitable services is currently determined under Section 1117 for
Title I-A purposes in that the denominator for the Title I-A calculation includes both low-income
public and non-public school students. Thus, under the Heroes Act amendment the denominator
would be smal er than it would be under the Title I-A equitable services calculation, resulting in
LEAs having to reserve a larger share of funds to serve non-public school students and teachers
than they would have to reserve based on the Title I-A equitable services calculation. However,
this could result in LEAs having to reserve a smal er share of funds than would be reserved under
the guidance issued by ED.
As previously discussed, the CARES Act equitable services guidance issued by ED was non-
binding. Several states, such as Indiana and Maine, indicated that they would not follow ED’s
guidance, while Tennessee and Texas have indicated that they would.78 Other states asked ED to
revise or rescind its guidance.79 In response to a letter from the Council of Chief State School
Officers80 asking ED to clarify its guidance, ED indicated that it planned to issue a rule related to
its guidance on equitable services under the ESF.81 ED also advised any LEAs that were not
following the equitable services guidance to “put into an escrow account the difference between

78 As of May 29, 2020, at least eight states (Indiana, Maine, Mississippi, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
Washington, and Wisconsin) had indicated that they would not follow the ED guidance. (Nicole Gaudiano, “At least 8
states buck DeVos push for emergency relief for private school kids,” Politico, May 29, 2020; Letter from Jennifer
McCormick, Superintendent of Public Instruction, to Superintendents, Program Administrators, and T reasurers of
LEAs and Non-Public School Administrators, May 12, 2020, https://www.doe.in.gov/sites/default/files/grants/final-
language-equitable-share-cares-51220.pdf; Emma Kate Fittes, “ Indiana rejects guidance from DeVos to reroute more
coronavirus relief to private schools,” Chalkbeat Indiana, May 12, 2020, https://www.ibj.com/articles/indiana-rejects-
guidance-from-devos-to-reroute-more-coronavirus-relief-to-private-schools; Andrew Ujifusa, “ Lawmakers T ell Betsy
DeVos Her COVID-19 Guidance Is ‘Robbing Public Schools’,” Education Week, May 20, 2020,
https://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2020/05/betsy-devos-robbing-public-schools-lawmakers-COVID-
19.html; and Aliyya Swaby, “ T exas school districts raise hands for share of $1.29 billion feder al infusion,” The Texas
Tribune, May 20, 2020, https://www.texastribune.org/2020/05/20/texas-schools-expect-billion-plus-federal-
coronavirus-relief-infusio/?utm_source=ECS+Subscribers&utm_campaign=fbdf5ccb7d-ED_CLIPS_05_21_2020&
utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1a2b00b930-fbdf5ccb7d-53608383).
79 Erica L. Green, “ DeVos Funnels Coronavirus Relief Funds to Favored Private and Religious Schools,” The New York
Tim es, May 15, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/15/us/politics/betsy-devos-coronavirus-religious-
schools.html.
80 Letter from Carissa Moffat Miller, Executive Director, Council of Chief State School Officers, to Secretary Betsy
DeVos, Secretary of Education, May 5, 2020, https://ccsso.org/sites/default/files/2020-05/DeVosESLetter050520.pdf.
81 Letter from Secretary Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education, to Carissa Moffat Miller, Executive Director, Council of
Chief State School Officers, May 22, 2020, https://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/
Secretary%20DeVos%20Response%20to%20Carrisa%20Moffat%20Miller%205%2022%2020.pdf (letter made
available in the following article: Andrew Ujifusa, “DeVos to Release Rule Cementing COVID Aid Push for Private
School Students,” Education Week, May 26, 2020, https://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2020/05/devos-
covid-aid-private-school-students-rule.html).
Congressional Research Service
26

CARES Act Education Stabilization Fund: Background and Analysis

the amount generated by the proportional-student enrollment formula and the Title I, Part A
formula.”
On July 1, 2020, ED published an interim final rule providing LEAs with three ways to
implement the equitable services provision.82 (ED also removed the existing guidance from its
website.)
Under one option, an LEA can determine the proportional share based on enrollment in
participating non-public elementary and secondary schools in the LEA compared to the total
enrollment in public and participating non-public elementary and secondary schools in the LEA
(total enrollment option).
The remaining options are available to LEAs only if they agree to use those funds available for
public education to serve exclusively students and teachers in public Title I-A schools. If this
condition is met, an LEA may determine the share of funds to be reserved to serve students and
teachers in non-public schools by either (1) using the proportional share of Title I-A funds
calculated by the LEA under Section 1117(a)(4)(A) of the ESEA for the 2019-2020 school year,
or (2) determining the number of children ages 5-17 who are from low-income families and
attend each non-public school in the LEA that wil be participating in a CARES Act program
compared to the total number of children ages 5-17 who are from low-income families in Title I-
A schools and participating non-public elementary and secondary schools in the LEA. In addition,
if an LEA chooses to implement one of the latter two options, the LEA must comply with the
supplement not supplant requirement included in Section 1118(b) of the ESEA.83 Among other
things, this requirement prohibits the LEA from al ocating CARES Act funds to Title I-A schools
and then redirecting state or local funds to non-Title I-A schools.
Control of the Funds Used to Provide Equitable Services
Control of the funds that are used to provide services and assistance to students and teachers in
non-public schools, as wel as title to materials, equipment, and property purchased with these
funds, must remain with a public agency. The public agency is required to administer such funds,
materials, equipment, and property. It must provide agreed-upon services or contract for the
provision of such services with a public or private entity. The funds wil remain under public
control to benefit the students and teachers in non-public schools but not the non-public schools
themselves.
Funds Potentially Available to Non-public Schools under the ESF
Although none of the funds received by LEAs under the GEER Fund or the ESSER Fund wil go
directly to non-public schools, it is possible that non-public schools could receive such funds
under the GEER Fund as an “education related entity” that is deemed essential for carrying out
emergency educational services to students. The statutory language does not appear to prohibit
non-public schools from receiving funds in this capacity. In addition, statutory language does not
limit the student beneficiaries under the GEER Fund to public school students only. While non-
public schools wil not receive any of the funds provided to LEAs under the ESSER Fund, it is
possible that an SEA, using funds it reserved, could choose to make a grant or enter into a

82 U.S. Department of Education, “CARES Act Programs; Equitable Services to Students and T eachers in Non -Public
Schools,” 85 Federal Register 39479-39488, July 1, 2020.
83 T he CARES Act did not apply a supplement not supplant requirement to either the GEER Fund or the ESSER Fund.
For more information about the T itle I-A supplement not supplant requirement, see CRS In Focus IF10405, Fiscal
Accountability Requirem ents That Apply to Title I-A of the Elem entary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) .
Congressional Research Service
27

CARES Act Education Stabilization Fund: Background and Analysis

contract with a private school to address emergency needs in responding to issues associated with
the coronavirus pandemic. This does not appear to be a prohibited use of funds.
Continued Payment to Employees (Section 18006)
Any LEA, state, IHE, or other entity that receives funds under the ESF is required to the “greatest
extent practicable” to pay its employees and contractors during periods of any disruptions or
closures related to the coronavirus emergency. As entities receiving funds are required to comply
with this requirement only to the greatest extent practicable, this provision does not ensure that
their employees or contractors wil continue to be paid during such periods.
Definitions (Section 18007)
The ESF includes a section with definitions that apply only to the ESF program. These include
specific definitions of elementary education, secondary education, IHE, Secretary, state, non-
public school, and public schools. There is also a provision that indicates that if any of the other
terms used in the ESF are defined in Section 8101 of the ESEA, the term shal have the meaning
given to it by that section.
Of particular note is the definition of state that applies to the GEER Fund and ESSER Fund. For
its purposes, state is defined to include the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
Thus, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are treated as states with respect to the al ocation
of funds under these two emergency education relief funds.
For purposes of the HEERF, the definition of IHE includes IHEs in the 50 states, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of the Marshal Islands, the Federated States of
Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau.
Maintenance of Effort (Section 18008)
The ESF includes two maintenance of effort (MOE) requirements—one that applies to state
support for elementary and secondary education and one that applies to state support for higher
education. If a state applies for a grant under the GEER Fund or the ESSER Fund, the grant
application must include assurances that the state wil meet both MOE requirements.
For elementary and secondary education, the state must provide an assurance that it wil maintain
support in FY2020 and FY2021 at least at the average level of support provided for elementary
and secondary education during the three fiscal years preceding the date of enactment of the
CARES Act.84
Similarly, for higher education the state or outlying area must provide an assurance that it wil
maintain support in FY2020 and FY2021 at least at the average level of support provided for
higher education during the three fiscal years preceding the date of enactment of the CARES Act.
For the purposes of determining state support for higher education, states must include state
funding to IHEs and state need-based financial aid. States do not have to include support for
capital projects, support for research and development, or tuition and fees paid by students.

84 T ypically, this will be FY2017, FY2018, and FY2019.
Congressional Research Service
28

CARES Act Education Stabilization Fund: Background and Analysis

The Secretary, however, has the authority to waive these MOE requirements to relieve fiscal
burdens on states that have “experienced a precipitous decline in financial resources.” In deciding
whether to grant such a waiver, it is up to the Secretary to determine whether such a decline in
financial resources has occurred.
Applicable CARES Act Reporting Requirements
In addition to reporting requirements that may be established by the Secretary, Section
15011(b)(2) of Division B of the CARES Act includes reporting requirements that must be met by
governors under the GEER Fund, SEAs under the ESSER Fund, and IHEs under the HEERF. Not
later than 10 days after the end of each calendar quarter, the entity that applied for federal funds
under one of the emergency education relief funds must submit a report to ED and the Pandemic
Response Accountability Committee that includes the total amount of funds received under the
ESF. It must also include a detailed list of al projects or activities for which funds were expended
or obligated, including their names, a description of them, and the estimated number of jobs
created or retained by them. Additional y, it must include detailed information on any level of
subcontracts or subgrants awarded by the governor or his/her subcontractors or subgrantees. The
information included in these reports must be made public by the Pandemic Response
Accountability Committee not later than 30 days after the end of each calendar quarter.
Congressional Research Service
29

link to page 34 CARES Act Education Stabilization Fund: Background and Analysis

Appendix. State Grants Under the Education
Stabilization Fund
Table A-1 compiles state grants for the Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund,
the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund, and amounts provided
to IHEs in each state under the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF) based upon
IHE al ocations published by ED, to provide a summary of state-level estimates for the majority
of the funds provided through the Education Stabilization Fund.
Table A-1. GEER Fund, ESSER Fund State Grants, and HEERF IHE Grants
Aggregated at the State Level for the CARES Act Education Stabilization Fund
(Dol ars in thousands)
Estimated
Funding
Provided to
Percentage
GEER Fund:
ESSER Fund:
the State or
Share of
Grant
Grant
HEERF:
IHEs in the
ESF
State/Entity
Amount
Amount
Allocations
State
Available
Alabama
$48,851
$216,948
$270,799
$536,598
1.78%
Alaska
$6,504
$38,408
$13,961
$58,873
0.20%
Arizona
$69,196
$277,423
$303,312
$649,931
2.16%
Arkansas
$30,664
$128,759
$137,277
$296,700
0.98%
California
$355,227
$1,647,306
$1,822,786
$3,825,319
12.69%
Colorado
$44,005
$120,994
$176,540
$341,539
1.13%
Connecticut
$27,882
$111,068
$145,912
$284,862
0.95%
Delaware
$7,917
$43,493
$47,150
$98,560
0.33%
District of Columbia
$5,808
$42,006
$57,885
$105,699
0.35%
Florida
$173,586
$770,248
$822,216
$1,766,050
5.86%
Georgia
$105,721
$457,170
$466,628
$1,029,518
3.42%
Hawai
$9,993
$43,385
$53,605
$106,984
0.36%
Idaho
$15,676
$47,855
$61,493
$125,024
0.41%
Il inois
$108,498
$569,467
$463,714
$1,141,679
3.79%
Indiana
$61,591
$214,473
$243,868
$519,932
1.73%
Iowa
$26,217
$71,626
$125,153
$222,995
0.74%
Kansas
$26,274
$84,529
$113,550
$224,354
0.74%
Kentucky
$43,799
$193,187
$165,887
$402,873
1.34%
Louisiana
$50,277
$286,980
$241,275
$578,532
1.92%
Maine
$9,274
$43,793
$44,040
$97,107
0.32%
Maryland
$45,658
$207,834
$238,786
$492,278
1.63%
Massachusetts
$50,844
$214,894
$299,762
$565,500
1.88%
Michigan
$89,433
$389,797
$368,705
$847,934
2.81%
Congressional Research Service
30

link to page 36 CARES Act Education Stabilization Fund: Background and Analysis

Estimated
Funding
Provided to
Percentage
GEER Fund:
ESSER Fund:
the State or
Share of
Grant
Grant
HEERF:
IHEs in the
ESF
State/Entity
Amount
Amount
Allocations
State
Available
Minnesota
$43,427
$140,137
$195,078
$378,642
1.26%
Mississippi
$34,663
$169,883
$205,123
$409,669
1.36%
Missouri
$54,643
$208,443
$231,569
$494,655
1.64%
Montana
$8,764
$41,295
$41,006
$91,065
0.30%
Nebraska
$16,358
$65,085
$69,836
$151,279
0.50%
Nevada
$26,477
$117,185
$74,221
$217,883
0.72%
New Hampshire
$8,891
$37,641
$43,648
$90,181
0.30%
New Jersey
$68,865
$310,371
$346,142
$725,378
2.41%
New Mexico
$22,263
$108,575
$76,787
$207,624
0.69%
New York
$164,286
$1,037,046
$991,621
$2,192,953
7.28%
North Carolina
$95,639
$396,312
$471,532
$963,483
3.20%
North Dakota
$5,933
$33,298
$31,825
$71,056
0.24%
Ohio
$104,917
$489,205
$431,457
$1,025,580
3.40%
Oklahoma
$39,919
$160,950
$180,522
$381,392
1.27%
Oregon
$32,508
$121,099
$134,927
$288,534
0.96%
Pennsylvania
$104,418
$523,807
$526,753
$1,154,978
3.83%
Puerto Rico
$47,812
$349,113
$343,501
$740,427
2.46%
Rhode Island
$8,704
$46,350
$66,829
$121,884
0.40%
South Carolina
$48,468
$216,311
$207,081
$471,860
1.57%
South Dakota
$7,944
$41,295
$36,390
$85,629
0.28%
Tennessee
$63,582
$259,891
$276,746
$600,219
1.99%
Texas
$307,026
$1,285,886
$1,147,546
$2,740,458
9.09%
Utah
$29,190
$67,822
$151,332
$248,344
0.82%
Vermont
$4,489
$31,148
$24,280
$59,917
0.20%
Virginia
$66,775
$238,599
$343,851
$649,225
2.15%
Washington
$56,769
$216,892
$233,238
$506,899
1.68%
West Virginia
$16,353
$86,640
$82,057
$185,051
0.61%
Wisconsin
$46,550
$174,778
$184,425
$405,753
1.35%
Wyoming
$4,701
$32,563
$13,694
$50,958
0.17%
Other entitiesa
NA
NA
$19,678
$19,678
0.07%
Reservation for
NA
NA
$85,507
$85,507
0.28%
subsequent awards
Total
$2,953,230
$13,229,265
$13,952,505
$30,135,000
100.00%
Source: Prepared by CRS based on data available from the U.S. Department of Education (ED), Governor’s
Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund, State Al ocation Table, available at https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/04/
Congressional Research Service
31

CARES Act Education Stabilization Fund: Background and Analysis

GEER-Fund-State-Al ocations-Table.pdf; Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund, State
Al ocation Table, available at https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/04/ESSER-Fund-State-Al ocations-Table.pdf; data from
the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF), ED Formula Al ocations, available at https://www2.ed.gov/
about/offices/list/ope/caresact.html as of May 1, 2020, and data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education
Data System (IPEDS) which were used to aggregate aid al ocated to IHEs at the state level. As is specified earlier
in this report, these state-level aggregations are estimates because some IHEs have branch campuses in more
than one state.
Notes: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. NA = not applicable. Percentages were calculated based
on unrounded numbers.
a. The other entities are Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, the Republic of the Marshal Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of
Palau.

Author Information

Rebecca R. Skinner
Joselynn H. Fountain
Specialist in Education Policy
Analyst in Education Policy

Cassandria Dortch
Emma C. Nyhof
Specialist in Education Policy
Research Assistant

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should n ot be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R46378 · VERSION 3 · UPDATED
32

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Aug. 6, 2020

HTML · PDF

4% changed

Jun. 3, 2020

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

Education Policy

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON