Court filing

CRS Report R47027 — Education Stabilization Fund Programs (ESSER/HEERF)

Filed January 9, 2023 in CRS R47027 Education Stabilization Fund, the only filing from this case in the archive.

Record facts

Court	Congressional Research Service
Filed	2023-01-09

Full text

Education Stabilization Fund Programs
Funded by the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and
ARPA: Background and Analysis
Updated January 9, 2023
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R47027

Congressional Research Service

SUMMARY
Education Stabilization Fund Programs Funded
by the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA:
Background and Analysis
From March 2020 through March 2021, the enactment of three laws provided increasing levels of
federal funding for elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education primarily through the
Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) in response to the national emergency related to the COVID-
19 pandemic as declared by President Trump on March 13, 2020. On March 27, 2020, $30.750
billion was initially appropriated for the ESF by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security Act (CARES Act; P.L. 116-136). On December 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Response
and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021 (CRRSAA; Division M of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 [P.L. 116-260]), was enacted, providing an additional $81.880 billion
in appropriations for an amended ESF. On March 11, 2021, the American Rescue Plan Act of
2021 (ARPA; P.L. 117-2), a budget reconciliation measure, provided an additional $169.609
billion for programs originally enacted as part of the ESF.
The ESF is generally composed of three emergency relief funds: (1) a Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER)
Fund, which includes the Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (EANS) program; (2) an Elementary and Secondary
School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund; and (3) a Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF). Funds were to
remain available through September 30, 2021, under the CARES Act; and remain available through September 30, 2022,
under the CRRSAA and through September 30, 2023, under the ARPA. The General Education Provisions Act (GEPA)
provides for an automatic one-year extension of these deadlines for the GEER Fund, EANS program, and ESSER Fund. All
ESF programs are admininstered by the U.S. Department of Education (ED).Each act specifies either a percentage of the
appropriated ESF funds to be made available under each ESF program after reserving funds for required purposes, such as
the outlying areas and the Bureau of Indian Education, or specifies the amount of funding to be provided to individual
programs.
A total of $277.7 billion was appropriated for ESF programs through a combination of discretionary and mandatory funding,
with $247.0 billion provided in FY2021 under the CRRSAA and ARPA. By comparison, in FY2021, total discretionary and
mandatory appropriations for ED were $77.2 billion.
GEER Fund
The GEER Fund received $2.953 billion under the CARES Act in FY2020 and $4.053 billion under the CRRSAA in FY2021
for a total of $7.006 billion. From the CRRSAA funds, the Secretary of Education is required to reserve $2.750 billion to
provide grants to states to provide services and assistance to private schools under the EANS program. While the GEER Fund
did not receive an appropriation under the ARPA, the EANS program received a separate appropriation of $2.750 billion.
Each governor may choose to use GEER funds not reserved for the EANS program to provide emergency funds to local
educational agencies (LEAs) and institutions of higher education (IHEs) serving students within the state for the continuity of
operations or to any other IHE, LEA, or education-related entity within the state for a broad array of purposes, including the
provision of child care and the protection of education-related jobs.
ESSER Fund
The ESSER Fund received $13.229 billion under the CARES Act in FY2020, $54.311 billion under the CRRSAA in
FY2021, and $122.775 billion under the ARPA in FY2021, for a total of $190.315 billion. State educational agencies (SEAs)
are required to provide at least 90% of the funds received to LEAs to be used for myriad purposes such as any activity funded
under various federal education laws, coordination of preparedness and response to the COVID-19 emergency, technology
acquisition, mental health services, and activities related to summer learning.
R47027
January 9, 2023
Rebecca R. Skinner
Specialist in Education
Policy

Joselynn H. Fountain
Analyst in Education Policy

Cassandria Dortch
Specialist in Education
Policy

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service
HEERF
The HEERF received $13.953 billion under the CARES Act in FY2020, $22.697 billion under the CRRSAA in FY2021, and
$39.585 billion under the ARPA in FY2021, for a total of $76.234 billion. Subsequent rescissions reduced HEERF funding to
$75.481 billion. The HEERF is generally composed of three programs: (1) direct grants to IHEs, (2) minority serving
institutions (MSIs) programs, and (3) assistance provided through the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education
Program (FIPSE). The majority (90% or more) of funds under each act are awarded as direct grants to IHEs. A minimum
specified percentage of each direct grant must be used for financial aid grants to students; any remaining funds may be used
for specified institutional expenses. A portion (7.5%) of HEERF funds from each act is made available to MSIs. The
remaining HEERF funds are made available to IHEs through FIPSE. Grants under the MSI and FIPSE programs may be used
for financial aid grants to students and specified institutional expenses.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Education Stabilization Fund Overview and Appropriations .......................................................... 2
Funds for the Outlying Areas, the BIE, and Competitive Grants .................................................... 8
Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund............................................................... 18
Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (EANS) Program ................................................. 21
Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund ......................................... 25
Equitable Services for Private School Students and Teachers Under the CARES Act ................. 34
Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF) ................................................................... 37
Maintenance of Effort and Maintenance of Equity ....................................................................... 57
Reporting Requirements ................................................................................................................ 60
Continued Payment to Employees ................................................................................................. 62
Definitions ..................................................................................................................................... 62

Tables
Table 1. Appropriations for the ESF and ESF Programs as Provided by the CARES Act,
CRRSAA, and ARPA ................................................................................................................... 5
Table 2. Summary of Reservations under the ESF as Provided by the CARES Act and
CRRSAA, and Funds for Similar Purposes Under the CARES Act and ARPA ......................... 16
Table 3. Allowable Uses of GEER Funds Under the CARES Act and CRRSAA ......................... 19
Table 4. Allowable Uses of EANS Funds Under the CRRSAA and ARPA .................................. 23
Table 5. Summary of SEA Grant Reservation Requirements Under the ESSER Fund
Included in the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA ................................................................... 29
Table 6. Allowable Uses of ESSER Funds by LEAs Under the CARES Act, CRRSAA,
and ARPA ................................................................................................................................... 31
Table 7. Reservations of Funds Under the HEERF as Provided by the CARES Act,
CRRSAA, and ARPA ................................................................................................................. 39
Table 8. Percentage of Funds Allocated by Each Formula Factor For the HEERF Direct
Grants to IHEs Under the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA .................................................. 40
Table 9. Actual Reservations of Funds for the MSI Programs Under HEERF of the
CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA ............................................................................................ 41
Table 10. CRRSAA SAIHE Eligibility and Formula Allocation Methodology ............................ 44
Table 11. ARPA SSARP Eligibility and Formula Allocation Methodology .................................. 45
Table 12. Allowable Uses of HEERF by IHEs Under the CARES Act, CRRSAA,
and ARPA ................................................................................................................................... 49

Table A-1. GEER Funds, ESSER Fund State Grants, and HEERF IHE Grants Aggregated
at the State Level for the CARES Act ESF ................................................................................ 63
Table A-2. GEER Funds, ESSER Fund State Grants, and HEERF IHE Grants Aggregated
at the State Level for the CRRSAA ESF .................................................................................... 66

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service
Table A-3. EANS Program, ESSER Fund State Grants, and HEERF IHE Grants
Aggregated at the State Level for the ARPA .............................................................................. 68
Table A-4. Total GEER Funds, EANS Program, ESSER Fund State Grants, and HEERF
IHE Grants Aggregated at the State Level for the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA
ESF ............................................................................................................................................. 71
Table A-5. Actual Grants to the Outlying Areas from ESF Funds Reserved Under the
CARES Act and CRRSAA, and from Funds for the Outlying Areas Under the ARPA,
for Programs Administered by ED ............................................................................................. 75
Table B-1. Obligation and Liquidation Periods for the GEER Fund Under the
CARES Act and CRRSAA ........................................................................................................ 78
Table B-2. Obligation and Liquidation Periods for the EANS Program Under the
CRRSAA and ARPA: Funds Used to Serve Private Schools ..................................................... 79
Table B-3. Obligation and Liquidation Periods for the EANS Program Under the
CRRSAA and ARPA: Funds Reverting to the Governor ........................................................... 79
Table B-4. Obligation and Liquidation Periods for the ESSER Fund Under the CARES
Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA ......................................................................................................... 80
Table B-5. Obligation and Liquidation Periods for IHEs Under the HEERF Under the
CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA ............................................................................................ 81
Table C-1. GEER Fund State Grants Provided by the CARES Act and CRRSAA ....................... 83
Table D-1. EANS Program State Grants Provided by the CRSSAA and ARPA ........................... 87
Table E-1. State Grants Under the ESSER Fund Provided by the CARES Act (ESSER I) .......... 91
Table E-2. State Grants Under the ESSER Fund Provided by the CRRSAA (ESSER II) ............. 94
Table E-3. State Grants Under the ESSER Fund Provided by the ARPA (ESSER III) ................. 97
Table E-4. State Grants Under the ESSER Fund Provided by the CARES Act, CRRSAA,
and ARPA ................................................................................................................................. 100
Table F-1. Estimated Allocations to IHEs Under the HEERF Provided by the CARES
Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA, Aggregated at the Institutional Sector Level ................................ 104
Table F-2. Estimated Allocations to IHEs Under the HEERF Provided by the CARES
Act, Aggregated at the State Level (HEERF I) ........................................................................ 106
Table F-3. Estimated Allocations to IHEs Under the HEERF Provided by the CRRSAA,
Aggregated at the State Level (HEERF II)............................................................................... 109
Table F-4. Estimated Allocations to IHEs Under the HEERF Provided by the ARPA,
Aggregated at the State Level (HEERF III) .............................................................................. 112
Table F-5. Estimated Allocations to IHEs Under the HEERF Provided by the CARES
Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA, Aggregated at the State Level ....................................................... 115

Appendixes
Appendix A. Grants to States, the Outlying Areas, and IHEs Under ESF Programs .................... 63
Appendix B. Obligation and Liquidation of Funds Under ESF Programs .................................... 76
Appendix C. Actual State Grants Under the Governor’s Emergency Education Relief
(GEER) Fund.............................................................................................................................. 83
Appendix D. Actual State Grants Under the Emergency Assistance for Non-Public
Schools (EANS) Program .......................................................................................................... 87

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service
Appendix E. Actual State Grants Under the Elementary and Secondary Schools
Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund .............................................................................................. 91
Appendix F. Estimated HEERF IHE Allocations Aggregated at the Institutional Sector
and State Levels for the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA ESF ........................................... 104

Contacts
Author Information ....................................................................................................................... 119

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

1
Introduction
From March 2020 through March 2021, three laws providing federal funding for elementary,
secondary, and postsecondary education were enacted in response to the national emergency
related to the COVID-19 pandemic declared by President Trump on March 13, 2020.1 The second
of these laws provided a higher amount of funding than the first, and the third provided a higher
amount than the second. The funds were intended to help the U.S. educational system “prevent,
prepare for, and respond to coronavirus.” Funds were generally made available to states, local
educational agencies (LEAs), private schools, and institutions of higher education (IHEs) to
support the transition to remote learning, provide support services to students, protect education-
related jobs, provide institutional support, and provide grant aid to postsecondary students.
On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act; P.L.
116-136) was signed into law. Included in the act was the Education Stabilization Fund (ESF),
which was created “to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or
internationally.” The ESF was composed of three emergency relief funds:
1. a Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund,
2. an Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund, and
3. a Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF).2
It also included a reservation of funds from the total ESF appropriation for the outlying areas,3 the
Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), and a competitive grant program. The ESF, administered by
the U.S. Department of Education (ED), had an appropriations level of $30.750 billion for
FY2020 under the CARES Act.4 The act provided that these funds were to remain available
through September 30, 2021.5
On December 27, 2020, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA; P.L. 116-260) was
enacted. Division M of the act is the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2021 (CRRSAA). The CRRSAA reauthorized the ESF and provided
additional appropriations for it. The ESF continued to include appropriations for the GEER Fund,
ESSER Fund, and HEERF. From appropriations for the GEER Fund, the Secretary of Education
(hereinafter referred to as the Secretary) was required to reserve funds for the Emergency
Assistance to Non-Public Schools (EANS) program. The ESF also included a reservation of funds
for the outlying areas and BIE from the total ESF appropriation but not a reservation of funds for

1 The 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 (Trump),
“Declaring a National Emergency Concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID–19) Outbreak,” 85 Federal
Register 53, March 18, 2020.
2 The acronyms used throughout this report are those utilized by the Department of Education in ESF-related materials.
3 The outlying areas are American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands.
4 The CARES Act appropriations provided for the ESF are designated 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.
5 Section 421 of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), commonly referred to as the “Tydings amendment,”
provides that any funds appropriated for an applicable program that are not obligated and expended by the recipient
educational agencies and institutions before the end of the fiscal year shall remain available for obligation for one
additional fiscal year (e.g., through September 30, 2022, in this case). This extension of the period of obligation of
funds applies to the GEER and ESSER Funds.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

2
the competitive grant program enacted under the CARES Act. Under the CRRSAA, the ESF had
an appropriation level of $81.880 billion for FY2021.6 The CRRSAA provided that these funds
are to remain available through September 30, 2022.7
On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed into law the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021
(ARPA; P.L. 117-2), an FY2021 budget reconciliation measure developed in response to the
COVID-19 pandemic.8 It provided mandatory appropriations for the ESSER Fund and HEERF.9
It also provided a separate mandatory appropriation for the EANS program, which had been
initially authorized as a reservation of funds for the GEER Fund under the CRRSAA. The ARPA
did not provide additional funding for the GEER Fund. It also did not include funding for the
outlying areas or the BIE as part of the ESF.10 Under the ARPA, the ESSER Fund, EANS
program, and HEERF had a total appropriations level of $165.109 billion for FY2021. The ARPA
provides that these funds are to remain available through September 30, 2023.11
This report discusses the ESF and the programs initially authorized under it that were included in
the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA. The report begins with an overview of the appropriations
available for the ESF and the required reservations of funds under each act. It then discusses each
of the emergency education relief funds, including the EANS program. The next part of the report
provides an overview of the other provisions included in the ESF: maintenance of effort (MOE)
and maintenance of equity (MOEq) provisions, reporting requirements, continued payments to
employees, and definitions. The report also includes several appendices that provide information
on state funding under the GEER Fund, EANS program, and ESSER Fund, and funding
aggregated at the state level and institutional sector level under the HEERF based on ED’s
published grant amounts, as well as information about periods of obligation and liquidation of
funds and deadlines that apply to HEERF.
Education Stabilization Fund Overview and
Appropriations
The ESF was initially authorized by the CARES Act. Under the act, funds were reserved from the
total appropriation for grants to the outlying areas and BIE and for competitive grants. The

6 The CRRSAA appropriations provided for the ESF are designated 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.
7 The “Tydings amendment” provides that any funds appropriated for an applicable program that are not obligated and
expended by the recipient educational agencies and institutions before the end of the fiscal year shall remain available
for obligation for one additional fiscal year (e.g., through September 30, 2023, in this case). This extension of the
period of obligation of funds applies to the GEER Fund and ESSER Fund.
8 See the House Budget Committee report (H.Rept. 117-7) for a discussion of the context surrounding the ARPA.
9 ESF appropriations provided under the CARES Act and CRRSAA were discretionary appropriations. For more
information on the difference between discretionary and mandatory appropriations, see CRS Report R44477,
Department of Education Funding: Key Concepts and FAQ.
10 The outlying areas received an appropriation of $850,000,000 under Title II—Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions—of the ARPA. The BIE received an appropriation of $850,000,000 under Title XI—Committee
on Indian Affairs—of the ARPA. Statutory language did not specify that the funds for the outlying areas or the funds
for the BIE had to be used for purposes authorized by ESF programs.
11 The “Tydings amendment” provides that any funds appropriated for an applicable program that are not obligated and
expended by the recipient educational agencies and institutions before the end of the fiscal year shall remain available
for obligation for one additional fiscal year (e.g., through September 30, 2024, in this case). This extension of the
period of obligation of funds applies to the ESSER Fund. At this time, it is unclear if it would apply to the EANS
program.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

3
remaining funds were then allocated to the GEER Fund, ESSER Fund, and HEERF. The
CRRSAA reauthorized the ESF and preserved a structure for it similar to that under the CARES
Act: reservations of funds for the outlying areas and BIE, with the remaining funds allocated to
the GEER Fund, ESSER Fund, and HEERF.12 Under the CRRSAA, about two-thirds of the funds
appropriated for the GEER Fund were reserved for the EANS program. The ARPA did not
provide appropriations for all of the ESF programs that had previously received appropriations
under the CARES Act and CRRSAA. Rather, appropriations were provided separately for the
ESSER Fund, EANS program, and the HEERF. Separate appropriations were also provided for
the outlying areas and BIE.13 No funds were appropriated for the GEER Fund.
Table 1 provides appropriations for the ESF and programs initially authorized by the ESF. The
ESF initially received $277.739 billion from the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA combined. It
indicates instances where funds are required to be reserved under the GEER Fund or ESSER
Fund for various purposes. It also provides a breakdown of how HEERF funds must be allocated
by ED for five major purposes. In response to congressional interest, the appropriations data
presented in Table 1 have not been rounded.
A portion of the initial appropriations ($76.234 billion) for the HEERF has been rescinded. The
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58), enacted on November 15, 2021, rescinded
$353 million of the unobligated HEERF balances to offset spending for federal aid to highways,
highway safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes. The Keep Kids Fed Act
of 2022 (P.L. 117-158), enacted on June 25, 2022, rescinded an addtional $400 million of the
unobligated HEERF balances to offset increased reimbursements for various federal child
nutrition programs in school year 2022-2023.14 In total, the rescissions reduce HEERF
appropriations by $753 million to $75.481 billion, and reduce the total ESF appropriations to
$276.986 billion. The rescissions are not reflected in Table 1 or Table 7.
The appendices of this report include detailed tables of funding allocations and other aspects of
the ESF. Specifically,

Appendix A details ESF grants by state under the CARES Act, CRRSAA,
ARPA, and all three acts combined.

Table A-5 provides ESF grants to the outlying areas as well as funds provided
directly to the outlying areas under the ARPA.

Appendix B includes a detailed discussion of the periods of obligation and
liquidation of funds that correspond to the GEER Fund, EANS program, ESSER
Fund, and HEERF.

Appendix C includes state grants under the GEER Fund under the CARES Act
and CRRSAA.

Appendix D displays state grants under the EANS program under the CRRSAA
and ARPA.

Appendix E presents actual state grant amounts under the ESSER Fund as
provided under the CARES Act, CRRSAA, ARPA, and all three acts combined.

12 The CRRSAA did not include a reservation of funds for competitive grants.
13 The ARPA appropriation for the BIE was provided directly to the bureau.
14 For more information about P.L. 117-158, see CRS Report R46681, USDA Nutrition Assistance Programs: Response
to the COVID-19 Pandemic.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

4

Appendix F presents estimated IHE allocations under the HEERF aggregated by
institutional sector and state under the CARES Act, CRRSAA, ARPA, and all
three acts combined.
A total of $277.7 billion was appropriated for ESF programs through a combination of
discretionary and mandatory funding, with $247.0 billion provided in FY2021 under the
CRRSAA and ARPA. This level of appropriations is substantially higher than the level of
appropriations provided annually for programs administered by ED. For example, in FY2021
total discretionary and mandatory appropriations for ED were $77.2 billion.15 For that same fiscal
year, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the largest source of federal aid for
elementary and secondary education provided through annual appropriations acts, received $26.3
billion in appropriations. Title I-A of the ESEA, the largest program authorized by the ESEA,
received $16.5 billion in FY2021. By comparison, the ESSER Fund received a total of $177.1
billion in FY2021 through the CRRSAA and ARPA.16 Additionally, the HEERF provided a
substantially higher level of appropriations to IHEs than was provided in annual funding bills.
The majority of annual funding for higher education is provided as financial assistance to
students, and a smaller portion of funding is provided as aid to IHEs. For example, annual
funding for Minority Serving Institutions, the primary source of institutional aid in the HEA,
received $1 billion in discretionary and mandatory appropriations through the Department of
Education Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260, Divison H, Title III). By comparison, those
programs were allocated $4.7 billion through the CRRSAA and ARPA.

15 This does not include rescissions or supplemental appropriations. For more information, see CRS Report R46859,
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education: FY2021 Appropriations. FY2021 discretionary appropriations and
appropriated mandatory spending were provided for ED through the Department of Education Appropriations Act,
2021 (P.L. 116-260, Division H, Title III). Total discretionary approprations for ED in FY2021 were $73.5 billion (not
including rescissions or supplemental appropriations). For more information, see https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/
budget/budget23/23pbapt.pdf. For more information about discretionary and mandatory appropriations, see CRS
Report R44477, Department of Education Funding: Key Concepts and FAQ.
16 The ARPA provided mandatory funding for the ESSER Fund, EANS program, and HEERF as the funds were
provided through a budget reconciliation measure.

CRS-5
Table 1. Appropriations for the ESF and ESF Programs as Provided by the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA

CARES Act (FY2020)a
CRRSAA (FY2021)a

$30,750,000,000

$81,880,000,000 $165,109,370,000
$277,739,370,000
Outlying areas
Up to 0.5%d
$153,750,000
0.5%
$409,400,000
$0e
$563,150,000
Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)
0.5%f
$153,750,000
0.5%
$409,400,000
$0e
$563,150,000
Competitive grants for states with the
“highest coronavirus burden”g
1.0%
$307,500,000
NA
$0
$0
$307,500,000
Subtotal for outlying areas, BIE, and
competitive grants
2% of total
appropriation
$615,000,000
1% of total
appropriation
$818,800,000
$0
$1,433,800,000
Remaining funds for GEER, ESSER,
EANS program, and HEERF
100.0% of the
remaining funds
$30,135,000,000
100.0% of the
remaining funds
$81,061,200,000 $165,109,370,000
$276,305,570,000
Governor’s Emergency Education Relief
(GEER) Fund
9.8%
$2,953,230,000
5.0%
$4,053,060,000
$0
$7,006,290,000
Reservation of funds for the Emergency
Assistance to Non-Public Schools (EANS)
programh
NA
NA
NA
$2,750,000,000
NA
$2,750,000,000
Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools
(EANS) Programh
NA
NA
NA
NA
$2,750,000,000
$2,750,000,000
Elementary and Secondary School
Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund
43.9%
$13,229,265,000
67.0%
$54,311,004,000
$122,774,800,000
$190,315,069,000
Reservation of funds for homeless children
and youth
NA
NA
NA
NA
$800,000,000
$800,000,000
Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund
(HEERF)
46.3%
$13,952,505,000
28.0%
$22,697,136,000
$39,584,570,000
$76,234,211,000c

CRS-6

CARES Act (FY2020)a
CRRSAA (FY2021)a

Program or Activity
Reservation
from Total
Appropriation
or Remaining
Fundsb
Appropriations
Reservation
from Total
Appropriation
or Remaining
Fundsb
Appropriations
ARPAa
(FY2021)
Totalc
(FY2020 and
FY2021)
Direct Grants to Institutions of Higher
Education (IHEs)
NA
$12,557,254,500
NA
NA
NA
$12,557,254,500
Direct Grants to Public and Private
Nonprofit IHEs
NA
NA
NA
$20,200,451,040
$36,021,958,700
$56,222,409,740
Direct Grants to Proprietary IHEs
NA
NA
NA
$680,914,080
$395,845,700
$1,076,759,780
Programs for Minority Serving Institutions
NA
$1,046,437,875
NA
$1,702,285,200
$2,968,842,750
$5,717,565,825
Fund for the Improvement of
Postsecondary Education
NA
$348,812,625
NA
$113,485,680
$197,922,850
$660,221,155
Sources: Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of provisions in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act; P.L. 116-136); the
Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021 (CRRSAA) included as Division M in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA; P.L.
116-260); and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA; P.L. 117-2).
Notes: NA = not applicable.
a.
While funds provided under the CARES Act and CRRSAA were discretionary appropriations, funds provided under the ARPA were mandatory appropriations. The
ARPA did not provide funds for the ESSER Fund or HEERF based on a percentage of overall ESF funds available. Rather, the ARPA specified the appropriations for
each program. The period of availability of funds varies by act and may be extended. Funds for ESF programs authorized by the CARES Act are available through
September 30, 2021. Funds for ESF programs provided by the CRRSAA are available through September 30, 2022. Funds for ESF programs provided by the ARPA
are available through September 30, 2023. See Appendix B for more information about how these periods of availability may be extended.
b.
Under the CARES Act and CRRSAA, appropriations for the outlying areas, the BIE, and competitive grants were determined based on a statutorily specified
percentage of the total ESF appropriation. The appropriations for the GEER Fund, ESSER Fund, and HEERF were determined based on a statutorily specified
percentage of the funds remaining after reserving funds for the outlying areas, the BIE, and competitive grants.
c.
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58) and the Keep Kids Fed Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-158) rescinded $753 million of the unobligated HEERF
balances. The amount of the rescissions is not reflected in the table as CRS is unable to break down the recission by each respective law.
d.
The Secretary was 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 him/her, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Interior. The outlying areas—American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands—are as defined in Section 8101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended. The Secretary opted to allocate the full 0.5% to the
outlying areas under the ESF authorized by the CARES Act.
e.
The outlying areas received an appropriation of $850,000,000 under Title II—Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions—of the ARPA. The BIE
received an appropriation of $850,000,000 under Title XI—Committee on Indian Affairs—of the ARPA. Statutory language did not specify that the funds for the

CRS-7
outlying areas or the BIE had to be used for purposes authorized by ESF programs. These funds are not included in the table; if the funds had been included, the
outlying areas total would have been $1,413,150,000, the BIE total would have been $1,413,150.000, and the ARPA overall total would have been $166,809,370,000.
The overall total for the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA would have been $279,439,370,000.
f.
Outside of the ESF, the BIE received a direct appropriation of $69,000,000 under Title VII of Division B—Emergency Appropriations for Coronavirus Health
Response and Agency Operations—of the CARES Act.
g.
Statutory language does not define “highest coronavirus burden” or indicate how this should be determined.
h.
The CRRSAA required that $2.75 billion (just over two-thirds) of the funds appropriated for the GEER Fund ($4.05 billion) be reserved for the EANS program. The
ARPA appropriated $2.75 billion for the EANS program directly.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

8
Funds for the Outlying Areas, the BIE, and
Competitive Grants
As discussed previously, both the CARES Act and CRRSAA included reservations of funds from
the total ESF appropriation for the outlying areas and BIE. The CARES Act also included a
reservation of funds for competitive grants. The ARPA did not reserve funds under the ESF for
any of these purposes but did provide separate funding for the outlying areas and BIE.
Reservation for the Outlying Areas
This section provides an overview of the availability of ESF funds to the outlying areas. It begins
with a discussion of how grant amounts were determined and awarded under the CARES Act.
This is followed by discussion of supplemental funding provided to the outlying areas under the
ESF provided by the CRRSAA. This section ends with a description of the funds available to the
outlying areas under ARPA, although such funds are not part of the ESF.
Following the enactment of the CARES Act, ED announced on May 5, 2020, that it would award
the full allowable 0.5% of the ESF overall appropriation to the outlying areas (§18001).17 ED
calculated grant amounts for each outlying area in accordance with the provisions of the GEER
Fund and the ESSER Fund.18 ED awarded 20% of the funds to the outlying areas based on factors
similar to those that were used to award state grants under the GEER Fund, including each
outlying area’s share of the population ages 5 to 24 relative to the total population ages 5 to 24
across the outlying areas, and each outlying area’s share of the count of children used to
determine Title I-A grants under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) relative to
the total number of children included in the determination of Title I-A grants for the outlying
areas. The remaining 80% of the funds were awarded using factors similar to those used to award
state grants under the ESSER Fund, including each outlying area’s share of prior year Title I-A
grants relative to the total amount of Title I-A funding provided to the outlying areas in the prior
year (see subsequent discussion of each fund for more information about these factors).19 The
grant amounts available to each outlying area are detailed in Table A-5. To receive available
funds under the GEER Fund, the governor of an outlying area had to submit a Certification and
Agreement document (application) to ED.20 To receive available funds under the ESSER Fund,
the state educational agency (SEA) of an outlying area had to submit a Certification and
Agreement document.21 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.

17 U.S. Department of Education, Formula Grants to the Outlying Areas, May 5, 2020, https://oese.ed.gov/offices/
education-stabilization-fund/outlying-areas/.
18 U.S. Department of Education, Education Stabilization Fund Grants to the Outlying Areas, https://oese.ed.gov/files/
2020/05/OA-Allocations-Table.pdf.
19 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.
20 A copy of the application is available at https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/05/Governors-ESF-OA-Certification-and-
Agreement.pdf.
21 A copy of the application is available at https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/05/SEA-ESF-OA-Certification-and-
Agreement.pdf.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

9
Under the CRRSAA, the Secretary was required to reserve 0.5% of the total ESF appropriation
for the outlying areas for supplemental awards (§311). The funds had to be allocated to the
outlying areas not more than 30 calendar days after enactment of the CRRSAA. ED was required
to distribute the funds on the basis of the terms and conditions for funding provided to the
outlying areas under the CARES Act. Thus, ED used the same methodology to distribute funds to
the outlying areas under the CRRSAA ESF as it used to distribute funds to them under the
CARES Act ESF.22 An outlying area did not have to complete a new application to receive these
funds. Table A-5 provides the grant amounts for each of the outlying areas under the CRRSAA
ESF.
As discussed previously, the ARPA did not provide an overall appropriation for the ESF. Rather, it
provided appropriations for specific programs that were part of the ESF under the CARES Act or
CRRSAA. Thus, there was no total ESF appropriation from which to reserve funds for the
outlying areas. The ARPA, however, did provide $850 million for the outlying areas. These funds
are independent of the ESF and are therefore not considered ESF funds. The ARPA did not
specify the purpose or allowable uses of the funds. According to ED, the $850 million would
enable SEAs in the outlying areas to

enact measures to help schools implement mitigation strategies that are consistent
with recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) to the “greatest extent” practicable;

address the effects of COVID-19 on students, including effects resulting from
interrupted instructions;

implement strategies to meet students’ academic, social, emotional, and mental
health needs;

offer evidence-based summer, afterschool, and extended learning and enrichment
programs;

support early childhood education;

invest in staff capacity; and

avoid layoffs.23
ED also stated that the ARPA funds would enable schools in the outlying areas to “support
students who have been most severely impacted by the pandemic and are likely to have suffered
the most because of long-standing inequities in our communities and schools.”24 Thus, while
funds provided to the outlying areas under the ARPA were not provided as part of the ESF, they
can be used for similar purposes as the ESSER funds provided under the ARPA. However, unlike
the ESF funds provided to the outlying areas under the CARES Act and CRRSAA, the ED-

22 ED used the most current Title I-A formula child count data available for the outlying areas to determine allocation
amounts under the CARES Act and CRRSAA. As the same Title I-A formula child counts were used to determine
allocations to the outlying areas under both acts, each outlying area’s proportionate share of funds available under the
CARES Act and CRRSAA was the same. For more information about the data used to determine CARES Act ESF and
CRRSAA ESF grants to the outlying areas, see U.S. Department of Education, Education Stabilization Fund
Allocations to the Outlying Areas, https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/05/OA-Allocations-Table.pdf; and U.S. Department of
Education, Education Stabilization Fund II Allocations to the Outlying Areas, https://oese.ed.gov/files/2021/01/
CRRSA-OA-allocations-and-methodology-1.11.21.doc, respectively.
23 Letter from Ian Rosenblum, Delegated the Authority to Perform the Functions and Duties of the Assistant Secretary,
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, to Commissioner, April 2021,
https://oese.ed.gov/files/2021/04/ARP-Cover-letter-to-Commissioners-in-OAs.docx (hereinafter referred to as “ED
letter about ARPA grants to the outlying areas”).
24 ED letter about ARPA grants to the outlying areas.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

10
established uses of funds provided to the outlying areas under the ARPA do not include higher
education. Table A-5 details funds appropriated for the outlying areas under the ESF as provided
by the ARPA.
In addition to the aforementioned funds, institutions of higher education (IHEs) in the outlying
areas and those in the freely associated states of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the
Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau are also eligible for grants under the
HEERF as funded by the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA.
In total, the outlying areas received $1.413 billion under the CARES Act ESF reservation,
CRRSAA ESF reservation, and ARPA appropriation.
Reservation for the Bureau of Indian Education
This section provides an overview of the availability of ESF funds to the BIE. The BIE, part of
the U.S. Department of the Interior, manages and funds an educational system for over 40,000
Indian students that includes 183 elementary and secondary education schools and dormitories
and two BIE postsecondary schools. The BIE also funds tribal colleges and universities (TCUs).
The section begins with a discussion of how grant amounts were distributed under the CARES
Act and CRRSAA. This is followed by a description of funding provided directly to the BIE for
similar purposes under the CARES Act and ARPA although such funds were not part of the ESF.
Under the CARES Act, the Secretary was required to reserve 0.5% of the total ESF appropriation
for the BIE (§18001). The statutory language requires that the funds be provided for programs
operated or funded by the BIE in consultation with ED. In accordance with listening sessions with
stakeholders and the agreement with ED, the BIE allotment was disbursed as follows: 70% to BIE
elementary and secondary schools based on weighted student counts,25 20% to TCUs based on the
Indian student count,26 and 10% for emergency needs determined by the BIE.27 The BIE was
permitted to reserve up to 0.5% of the total BIE allocation for administrative costs, which would
be taken from the 10% of funds reserved for emergency needs. Elementary and secondary schools
may use the funds in accordance with the ESSER Fund (see subsequent discussion). TCUs may
use the funds in accordance with the HEERF (see subsequent discussion) except that funds are
not required to be expended for student grants.28
Under the CRRSAA, the Secretary also was required to reserve 0.5% of the total ESF
appropriation for the BIE for a supplemental award (§311). The Secretary was required to award
the funds to the Secretary of the Interior not more than 30 calendar days after enactment of the
CRRSAA. The funds must be used for programs operated or funded by the BIE under the terms
and conditions established for funding provided to the BIE under the CARES Act. The statutory
language further specifies that 60% of the funds must be allocated for BIE-funded elementary and

25 The BIE assigns weights to student counts based on several factors including, but not limited to, school size, grade
levels, and number of English language learners.
26 Tribal colleges and universities are as defined in Section 316 of the Higher Education Act, as amended. In addition to
funds from the BIE reservation, TCUs are also separately eligible to receive funds under the HEERF.
27 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.
28 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. Department of the Interior (DOI) – Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), June 11-12, 2020.
School-level allocations are available at U.S. Department of the Interior, Indian Affairs, 2020 CARES Act,
https://www.bia.gov/sites/bia.gov/files/assets/as-ia/opa/Attachment%202%20-
%20TCUs%20and%20Schools%20Allocations.pdf.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

11
secondary schools. These schools may not be required to submit a spending plan prior to
receiving the funds. The remaining 40% of funds must be distributed to TCUs in accordance with
Section 316(d)(3) of the Higher Education Act.29 Under agreement with ED, the BIE may reserve
up to 10% of the total BIE reservation for national-level support, from which BIE may reserve up
to 0.5% of the total BIE reservation for administrative costs.
Outside of the ESF, the BIE received a direct appropriation of $69 million under the CARES Act
and $850 million under the ARPA. These funds are independent of the ESF and are therefore not
considered ESF funds. The CARES Act funds were provided for the programs and activities
supported by the BIE to prevent, prepare for, and respond to COVID-19, and at least $20 million
was required be allocated to TCUs. Of the CARES Act funds, the BIE allocated $46.1 million to
its K-12 schools based on weighted student counts,30 $2.7 million to its postsecondary schools,
and $20.2 million to TCUs (other than the BIE postsecondary schools) based on the Indian
student count.31 ARPA funds must be allocated within 45 calendar days of enactment to programs
or activities operated or funded by the BIE.32 Of the ARPA funds, the BIE allocated $535.5
million to BIE K-12 schools based on weighted student counts, $229.5 million to TCUs based on
Indian student counts, and $85.0 million for BIE-managed information technology and facilities
projects.33 The CARES Act funds were available until September 30, 2021; while the ARPA funds
are available until expended.
Overall, the BIE received $563 million under the ESF as funded by the CARES Act and
CRRSAA. In addition, it received direct appropriations of $919 million under the CARES Act
and ARPA. In total, the BIE received $1.482 billion from the three acts.
Competitive State Grants under the CARES Act
Under the ESF as authorized by the CARES Act, the Secretary was required to reserve 1% of the
overall ESF appropriation to provide competitive grants to the states with the “highest
coronavirus burden” to support activities under the ESF. The CARES Act did not include a
definition of “highest coronavirus burden.” The ESF as funded by the CRRSAA did not include a
reservation of funds for competitive state grants. The ARPA also did not include a reservation of
funds for competitive state grants.
Within 30 days of enactment of the CARES Act, the Secretary was required to issue a notice
inviting states to apply for the competitive grants. Upon receipt of an application, the Secretary
had 30 days to approve or deny it. On April 27, 2020, ED announced that two types of
competitive grants would be awarded:
1. $180 million would be made available for Education Stabilization Fund—
Rethink K12 Education Models Grants (ESF-REM Grants), and

29 In addition to funds from the BIE reservation, TCUs are also separately eligible to receive funds under the HEERF.
30 The BIE assigns weights to student counts based on several factors including, but not limited to, school size, grade
levels, and number of English language learners.
31 U.S. Department of the Interior, Indian Affairs, 2020 CARES Act, Bureau of Indian Education Virtual Listening
Session- July 8, https://www.bia.gov/covid-19/cares-act.
32 BIE-funded schools are as defined in 25 U.S.C. 2021(3), and TCUs are as defined in HEA Section 316(b)(3).
33 U.S. Department of the Interior, Indian Affairs, BIE Implementation of American Rescue Plan (ARP) Funding,
https://www.bia.gov/service/american-rescue-plan-act/bie-implementation-arp-funding.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

12
2. $127.5 million would be made available for Education Stabilization Fund—
Reimagining Workforce Preparation Grants (ESF-RWP Grants).34
ESF Rethink K-12 Education Models (ESF-REM) Grants
The ESF-REM Grant was “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.”35 Awards were made to states for “activities to help prevent, prepare for, and respond
to the devastating effects of COVID-19.”36 Each SEA could submit only one application and was
required to apply to use ESF-REM Grants under one of three absolute priorities established by
ED:
1. microgrants37 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
3. new, field-initiated models for providing remote education to meet the specific
educational needs of the state.38
First Absolute Priority: Microgrants to Parents
Under the first absolute priority,39 a state was required to provide parents and students with a list
of service providers from which the parents and students may select. The list had to include more
than one education service for remote learning. The notice included examples of 11 possible
remote learning options that could be made available, including tuition and fees for a public or
private course or program, especially online; special education and related services; tutoring;
summer or afterschool education programs; and testing preparation and examination fees.
The state was required to provide an online and other method to allow parents and students to
select services, ensure that microgrant accounts were established within the project period of the
grant, and ensure that each parent is aware of how much funding is available. The state was also
required to establish a parent involvement and feedback process that, for example, described a
way for parents to request services and providers that were not currently offered and to have input

34 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.
35 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.
36 U.S. Department of Education, “Notice Inviting Applications (NIA) for the FY2020; Education Stabilization Fund-
Rethink K-12 Education Models (ESF-REM) Discretionary Grant Program,” 85 Federal Register 25411-25417, May 1,
2020 (hereinafter referred to as “ESF-REM notice”), p. 25411.
37 The notice defines a microgrant as “an account established for a parent that provides funds directly to service
providers to expand educational choice. The 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. 25414).
38 ESF-REM notice, pp. 25412-25413.
39 ESF-REM notice, pp. 25412-25415.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

13
on the creation of the list of services and providers. The state was also required to include a “fair
and documented”40 process for selecting which students would be served if requests for services
from the parents of public and nonpublic school students exceeds capacity. The state also had to
ensure that at least 80% of the grant funds are used for services that are directly utilized by public
and nonpublic school students under the microgrants. No more than 5% of the funds could be
used by the state for administration.
Second Absolute Priority: Statewide Program
A state choosing the second absolute priority41 was required to develop or expand a statewide
virtual learning or course-access program, provided that it also proposed to implement either a
statewide course-access program or virtual school. The state’s application also had to propose to
widely disseminate information on the availability of course-access programs or virtual school
programs. Additionally, it had to 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.
Third Absolute Priority: Proposals for Remote Learning
Under the third absolute priority,42 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.”43 Proposed projects were required to address
specific needs related to accessing high-quality remote learning opportunities.
Nonpublic School Students
In addition, the notice stated that an applicant must ensure equitable access for nonpublic school
students under the absolute priority that it proposes to address.44 The notice defined this to mean
providing students in nonpublic 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.”45
Application Review
Applications were reviewed and assigned a score of up to 100 points. Of these, up to 40 points
were based on the coronavirus burden in each state. Under the requirements of Section 18001 of
the CARES Act, the Secretary was required to provide competitive grants to the states with the
“highest coronavirus burden” to support activities under the ESF.46 For the purposes of the ESF-

40 ESF-REM notice, p. 25413.
41 ESF-REM notice, pp. 25413-25415.
42 ESF-REM notice, pp. 25413-25415.
43 ESF-REM notice, p. 25413.
44 ESF-REM notice, p. 25413.
45 ESF-REM notice, p. 25414.
46 ED defined coronavirus burden to mean the “burden on a State from coronavirus based on the measures in the
application package and any measures identified by the applicant in response to Application Requirement 3” (ESF-
REM notice, pp. 25413-25414). Application Requirement 3 requires the state to provide a description of the state’s
coronavirus burden based on “indicators and information factors other than those provided in the application package
that demonstrate the significance of the impact of COVID-19 on students, parents, and schools in the State” (ESF-REM
notice, p. 25414).

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

14
REM grants, ED established a series of four metrics to determine, in part, the coronavirus burden
in each state: 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.47, 48
Grant Awards49
Overall, 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 million. Grant amounts
ranged from $6.9 million for South Dakota to $20 million for Tennessee. The project period for
all grants is scheduled to run through July 31, 2023.
ESF Reimagining Workforce Preparation (ESF-RWP) Grants
These grants were “designed to expand short-term postsecondary programs and work-based
learning programs in order to get Americans back to work and help small businesses return to
being our country’s engines for economic growth.”50 ED established two absolute priorities and
three competitive priorities for the grant program.51
Absolute Priority 1: Short-Term Opportunities or Career Pathways
Under Absolute Priority 1, states could create or expand short-term education and training
opportunities or career pathway programs to help citizens return to work, become entrepreneurs,
or expand their small businesses. Short-term education programs or career pathways created or
expanded under this priority must lead to some type of workplace-relevant credential that
responds “to the needs of employers or facilitate entrepreneurship.”52 Grantees could use funds to
develop and implement short-term education and training programs and career pathways, hire
qualified instructors, obtain needed equipment and supplies, and subsidize tuition and fees. Funds

47 U.S. Department of Education, Application for Grants Under the Education Stabilization Fund—Rethink K-12
Education Models (ESF-REM) Discretionary Grants Program, April 2020, https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/04/ESF-REM-
Application-Package-FY20.pdf.
48 ED published the final metrics on June 29, 2020 (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).
49 The 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.
50 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.
51 U.S. Department of Education, “Notice Inviting Applications (NIA) for the FY2020 Education Stabilization Fund—
Reimagine Workforce Preparation (ESF-RWP) Grants Program,” 85 Federal Register 37636-37648, June 23, 2020
(hereinafter referred to as “ESF-RWP notice”).
52 ESF-RWP notice, p. 37636.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

15
could also be used for other purposes, such as student support services, transportation vouchers,
and child care support.
Two competitive priorities applied to applications submitted under Absolute Priority 1. Under the
first competitive priority, preference was given to applications that propose a project in which
short-term educational programs and training programs “include didactic education that will be
principally delivered through distance education.”53 Under the second competitive priority,
competitive preference was given to applicants that propose to “serve lifelong learners in
distressed communities.”54
Absolute Priority 2: Small Business Incubators
Under Absolute Priority 2, states could use grants to “create or expand small business incubators
that offer education and training, mentorship, as well as shared facilities and resources that will
help small businesses recover and grow and new entrepreneurs thrive.”55 According to ED, the
incubators create new opportunities for IHEs to expand their offerings and create new revenue
streams, enabling the institutions to “become entrepreneurial at a time when declining
enrollments and COVID-19 related disruptions may result in longer-term underutilization of
campus facilities. In this regard, these funds assist in the stabilization of institutions and the local
economy.”56
ED established one competitive priority for applicants under Absolute Priority 2. Under this
competitive priority, competitive preference was given to applicants serving entrepreneurs and
businesses in distressed communities.
Application Review
For the purposes of the ESF-RWP grants, a state’s coronavirus burden was determined based on
three equally weighted factors: (1) percentage of population without broadband access, (2) initial
unemployment insurance claims filed (as a percentage of the civilian labor force), and (3) state
percentage share of confirmed COVID-19 cases per 100,000 persons.57 Using these three factors,
ED calculated a burden score for each state and ranked states based on their burden score.58
Grants Awarded
Grant applications were made available in June 2020 and were due on August 24, 2020.59 ED
awarded eight ESF-RWP grants, ranging in size from $13.3 million to $18.1 million, to grantees
in eight states (Alabama, Arkansas, California, Hawaii, Michigan, Nevada, New York, and
Virginia).60

53 ESF-RWP notice, p. 37639.
54 ESF-RWP notice, p. 37639. Distressed communities refers to rural communities or Opportunity Zones.
55 ESF-RWP notice, p. 37637.
56 ESF-RWP notice, p. 37637.
57 ESF-RWP notice, pp. 37646-37648.
58 ED updated these data and state burden scores on August 24, 2020. The updated data are available at
https://s3.amazonaws.com/PCRN/file/ESF-RWP_Burden_Methodology_Appendix_Final.pdf.
59 U.S. Department of Education, Application for Grants Under the Education Stabilization Fund—Reimagine
Workforce Preparation (ESF-RWP) Discretionary Grants Program, June 2020, https://apply07.grants.gov/apply/
opportunities/instructions/PKG00262274-instructions.pdf.
60 For more information, see U.S. Department of Education, ESF-RWP FY2020 Awards, 2020, https://oese.ed.gov/
offices/education-stabilization-fund/reimagine-workforce-preparation/awards-4/.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

16
Summary of Provisions Related to Reservations from the Total ESF
Appropriations
Table 2 provides an overview of the key provisions related to the outlying areas, the BIE, and
competitive state grants under the ESF as funded by the CARES Act and CRRSAA. It also
includes information about the funds appropriated for the outlying areas and BIE under the
CARES Act and ARPA, which were not part of the ESF.
Table 2. Summary of Reservations under the ESF as Provided by the CARES Act and
CRRSAA, and Funds for Similar Purposes Under the CARES Act and ARPA
Provision
CARES Act
CRRSAA
ARPA
Outlying Areas
Allocation of funds
Secretary may reserve up
to 0.5% of the total ESF
appropriation.a
Secretary must reserve
0.5% of the total ESF
appropriation.
Separate appropriation of
$850 million was provided
(non-ESF funds).
Application process
Outlying areas required
to apply for funds.
No additional application
required for outlying
areas that received funds
under the CARES Act.
No application process
was specified.
Timing for distribution of
funds
Not specified in statutory
language.
Must be allocated by the
Secretary no more than
30 calendar days after
enactment of the
CRRSAA.
Must be allocated by the
Secretary no more than
30 calendar days after
enactment of the ARPA.
Uses of funds
Funds must be used to
carry out the ESF.
Same as the CARES Act.
No uses of funds were
specified.b
BIE
Allocation of funds
(1) Secretary must
reserve 0.5% of the total
ESF appropriation.
(2) Separate appropriation
of $69 million was
provided to the BIE (non-
ESF funds).
Secretary must reserve
0.5% of the total ESF
appropriation.
Separate appropriation of
$850 million was provided
to the BIE (non-ESF
funds).
Timeline for distributing
funds to the BIE
(1) Not specified in
statutory language.
(2) Not specified in
statutory language.
Must be allocated by the
Secretary to the Secretary
of the Interior not more
than 30 calendar days
after enactment of the
CRRSAA.
Must be allocated by the
Director of the BIE within
45 calendar days after
enactment of the ARPA.
Allocation of funds within
the BIE
(1) Not specified in
statutory language.c
(2) BIE must reserve at
least $20 million for tribal
colleges and universities
(TCUs).
60% for BIE-funded
schools and 40% for
TCUs.d
Statutory language does
not specify an allocation
of funds between the
programs or activities
operated or funded by
the BIE, BIE-funded
schools, and TCUs.e

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

17
Provision
CARES Act
CRRSAA
ARPA
Uses of funds
(1) Funds must be used
for programs operated or
funded by the BIE to carry
out the ESF.
(2) Funds provided for
programs and activities
funded by the BIE to
prevent, prepare for, and
respond to COVID-19.
Funds must be used for
programs operated or
funded by the BIE under
the terms and conditions
established under the
CARES Act for BIE-
operated and funded
elementary and secondary
schools and TCUs.
Funds must be used for
programs or activities
operated or funded by
the BIE for BIE-funded
schools and TCUs.
Competitive State Grants
Allocation of funds
Secretary must reserve
1% of the total ESF
appropriation for grants
to states with the “highest
coronavirus burden.”
No reservation of funds
for competitive state
grants.
No reservation of funds
for competitive state
grants.
Application process
Secretary must issue a
notice inviting applications
not later than 30 days
after the enactment of the
CARES Act and must
approve or deny
applications not later than
30 days after receipt.
NA
NA
Timeline for distributing
funds
Not specified, but the
Secretary is required to
approve or deny
applications for funding
not later than 30 days
after receipt.
NA
NA
Uses of funds
Funds must be used to
support activities under
the ESF.
NA
NA
Sources: Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of provisions in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act (CARES Act; P.L. 116-136); the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2021 (CRRSAA) included as Division M in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021
(CAA; P.L. 116-260); and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA; P.L. 117-2).
a.
The Secretary reserved the full 0.5% of ESF appropriations for the outlying areas (U.S. Department of
Education, Formula Grants to the Outlying Areas, May 5, 2020, https://oese.ed.gov/offices/education-
stabilization-fund/outlying-areas/).
b.
ED specified the uses of funds in a letter to the outlying areas (Letter from Ian Rosenblum, Delegated the
Authority to Perform the Functions and Duties of the Assistant Secretary, Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, to Commissioner, April 2021, https://oese.ed.gov/files/
2021/04/ARP-Cover-letter-to-Commissioners-in-OAs.docx).
c.
The BIE allotment was disbursed as follows: 70% to BIE elementary and secondary schools and early
childhood education programs, 20% to TCUs, and 10% for emergency needs determined by the BIE. The
BIE was permitted to reserve up to 0.5% of the total BIE allocation for administrative costs, which would be
taken from the 10% of funds reserved for emergency needs (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.
Department of the Interior (DOI) – Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), June 11-12, 2020).
d.
The BIE allotment was disbursed as follows: 54% to BIE elementary and secondary schools and early
childhood education programs, 36% to TCUs, and 10% for national-level support. The BIE was permitted to
reserve up to 0.5% of the total BIE allocation for administrative costs, which would be taken from the 10%
of funds reserved for national-level support (U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Education,

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

18
Listening Session Documents: CRRSA Funding Distribution and Waiver Overview, Completed BIE K-12
ESF-II COVID-19 Relief Act Allocations, https://www.bie.edu/sites/default/files/inline-files/BIE%20K-
12%20Schools%20ESF-II%20COVID-19%20Relief%20Act%20Allocations_0.pdf).
e.
The BIE plans to disburse its allotment as follows: 63% to BIE elementary and secondary schools and early
childhood education programs, 27% to TCUs, and 10% for BIE-wide investments (U.S. Department of the
Interior, BIE Implementation of American Rescue Plan (ARP) Funding, https://www.bia.gov/service/american-
rescue-plan-act/bie-implementation-arp-funding).
Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER)
Fund
Both the CARES Act and the CRRSAA provided appropriations for the GEER Fund. In each
state61 receiving GEER funds, the governor may use the grant to provide emergency funds to
LEAs and IHEs serving students within the state to provide for the continuity of operations, or to
any other IHE, LEA, or education-related entity within the state for a broad array of purposes,
including the provision of child care and the protection of education-related jobs. The CARES
Act appropriated $2.953 billion in FY2020 for the GEER Fund (commonly referred to as GEER
I). The CRRSAA provided $4.053 billion in supplemental ESF appropriations in FY2020.
However, the CRRSAA created a new reservation of funds under the GEER Fund (commonly
referred to as GEER II) for providing grants to governors to be used by SEAs for providing
services and assistance to private schools. Of the $4.053 billion provided for the GEER Fund
under the CRRSAA, $2.750 billion (about two-thirds) was reserved for the Emergency Assistance
to Non-Public Schools program. The remaining $1.303 billion was available for grants to
governors. The ARPA did not include an appropriation for the GEER Fund.
This section discusses the provisions of the GEER Fund authorized under the CARES Act and the
CRRSAA. The EANS program is discussed in a subsequent section.
Requirements for ED to Award Funds
Under GEER I, the Secretary was required to make grants to the governor of each state with an
approved application. The Secretary was 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 had 30 days to approve or deny it. The statutory language did not provide for an appeals
process for any state whose application was denied. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and
Puerto Rico had their applications for funding approved.
Under the CRRSAA, governors were not required to submit a new application to receive GEER II
funds. Rather, the governor of each state with an approved GEER Fund application under the
CARES Act was eligible to receive GEER funds under the CRRSAA. ED was required to make
GEER funds available for state grants, after reserving $2.75 billion for the EANS program, within
30 calendar days of enactment of the CRRSAA.
State Grant Formula
Under the CARES Act and the CRRSAA, after reserving $2.75 billion for the EANS program, as
discussed below, the funds available for the GEER Fund were awarded to states based on two

61 For the purposes of the GEER Fund, state is defined to include the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

19
formula factors: (1) 60% was awarded based on each state’s share of individuals ages 5-24
relative to the total number of individuals in this age group in all states,62 and (2) 40% was
awarded based on each state’s share of children counted under Section 1124(c) of the ESEA
relative to the total number of children counted under this section for all states. Population
estimates for the first factor were available from the U.S. Census Bureau. For the purposes of
GEER allocations under the CARES Act, ED used 2018 state-level resident population estimates
for individuals ages 5-24 that were released by the U.S. Census Bureau in June 2019. For GEER
allocations under the CRRSAA, ED used 2019 state-level resident population estimates for
individuals ages 5-24 that were released by the U.S. Census Bureau in June 2020.
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 Small 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. For state grants under GEER I, ED used formula
child counts for FY2020 Title I-A grants. For state grants under GEER II, ED used preliminary
formula child counts for FY2021 Title I-A grants. Thus, as the underlying data used to determine
state allocations differ for GEER I and GEER II, some states’ shares of the available GEER Fund
appropriations differ under each act.
Table C-1 includes state grants under GEER I and GEER II.
Uses of Funds
Grants awarded to governors from the GEER Fund may be used for educational services in three
categories: (1) elementary and secondary education, (2) higher education, and (3) elementary,
secondary, higher, and other areas of education, including child care, early childhood education,
social and emotional support, and protecting education-related jobs. Table 3 provides a list of all
authorized activities under the CARES Act and CRRSAA. The specific wording of these uses of
funds in the CARES Act column has been taken directly from statutory language.
Table 3. Allowable Uses of GEER Funds Under the CARES Act and CRRSAA
CARES Act
(GEER I)
CRRSAA
(GEER II)
Notes
“Provide emergency support through
grants to local educational agencies that
the State educational agency deems have
been most significantly impacted by
coronavirus to support the ability of such
local educational agencies to continue to
provide educational services to their
students and to support the on-going
functionality of the local educational
agency.”
Same as the CARES Act.
Neither the CARES Act nor the
CRRSAA includes a definition for
“most significantly impacted by
coronavirus” or provides 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.

62 Data for the 50 states and the District of Columbia were available from the U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Estimates of
the Resident Population for Selected Age Groups by Sex: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019, https://www.census.gov/data/
tables/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-state-detail.html#par_textimage_673542126. More recent data for Puerto Rico
by age groups were not yet available, so data from 2018 were used. These data are available at Annual Estimates of the
Resident Population by Single Year of Age and Sex for the United States, States, and Puerto Rico Commonwealth:
April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2018, https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-state-detail.html.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

20
CARES Act
(GEER I)
CRRSAA
(GEER II)
Notes
“Provide emergency support through
grants to institutions of higher education
serving students within the State that the
Governor determines have been most
significantly impacted by coronavirus to
support the ability of such institutions to
continue to provide educational services
and support the on-going functionality of
the institution.”
Same as the CARES Act.
Neither the CARES Act nor the
CRRSAA includes a definition for
“most significantly impacted by
coronavirus” or provides any metrics
by which this should be determined.
Thus, the criteria used by SEAs to
identify IHEs that are eligible to receive
emergency education relief funds may
differ from state to state.
“Provide support to any other institution
of higher education, local educational
agency, or education related entity within
the State that the Governor deems
essential for carrying out emergency
educational services to students for
authorized activities described in section
18003(d)(1) of this title or the Higher
Education Act, the provision of child care
and early childhood education, social and
emotional support, and the protection of
education-related jobs.”
Similar to the CARES
Act.a
Neither the CARES Act nor the
CRRSAA includes a definition of what
qualifies an entity as essential for
carrying out emergency educational
services to students. Thus, the criteria
used by governors to identify these
entities may vary from state to state.
Sources: Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of provisions in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act (CARES Act; P.L. 116-136); and the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2021 (CRRSAA) included as Division M in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021
(CAA; P.L. 116-260).
a.
The reference to Section 18003(d)(1) in the CARES Act and a reference to Section 313(d)(1) in the
CRRSAA are both references to the uses of ESSER Funds by LEAs in each act, respectively.
While the uses of funds under GEER I and GEER II are broad, the CRRSAA includes some
restrictions on the uses of GEER II funds that did not apply to GEER I funds. More specifically,
GEER II funds and the funds reserved for the EANS program cannot be used to provide direct or
indirect assistance to scholarship granting organizations or related entities for elementary or
secondary education. In addition, such funds cannot be used to provide or support vouchers,
tuition tax credit programs, education savings accounts, scholarships, scholarship programs, or
tuition-assistance programs for elementary or secondary education. The one exception to these
restrictions is that GEER II funds not reserved for the EANS program may be used to provide
such support to students who received such assistance with GEER I funds provided under the
CARES Act for the 2020-2021 school year, but only for the same assistance previously provided
to students.63 This exception does not apply to funds used under the EANS program but does
apply to unobligated EANS funds that revert to the governor for use under GEER II requirements.
Reallocation of Funds
Any funds that a governor does not award under GEER I or GEER II within one year of receiving
them must be returned to the Secretary. The Secretary is required to reallocate such funds to the
remaining states based on the formula used to provide the initial grant amounts.

63 The statutory provision requires that the “same assistance” be provided to students but does not specify whether this
means the same type of assistance (e.g., voucher), the same amount of assistance, or both.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

21
Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools
(EANS) Program
This section discusses appropriations reserved for the EANS program under GEER II by the
CRRSAA (EANS I) and appropriations provided directly for the EANS program under the ARPA
(EANS II). With exceptions noted in the subsequent discussion, the ARPA referenced the
CRRSAA EANS program provisions in its provision of additional funds for the EANS program.
The EANS program provides grants to SEAs, which in turn use the funds to provide services or
assistance to nonpublic schools to address educational disruptions resulting from the COVID-19
emergency.
Allocation of Funds to Governors
The CRRSAA required that $2.75 billion (just over two-thirds) of the funds appropriated for the
GEER Fund ($4.05 billion) be reserved for the EANS program. These funds were allocated to
states based on their proportional share of children ages 5-17 from families with incomes at or
below 185% of poverty. The remaining $1,303,060,000 was distributed to states based on the
GEER Fund state grant formula described in the previous section.
The ARPA appropriated $2.75 billion for the EANS program directly. The ARPA did not include
appropriations for the GEER Fund. Based on the requirements of the EANS program included in
the CRRSAA, funds provided under the EANS program must be allocated to states based on their
proportional share of children ages 5-17 enrolled in private schools from families with incomes at
or below 185% of the poverty level.
The governor is required to designate the SEA as the program administrator for the EANS
program. Table D-1 details EANS grants to states under the CRRSAA and ARPA.
Application for Grants
The Secretary was required to issue a notice inviting applications for EANS funds not later than
30 days after the enactment of the CRRSAA. The Secretary was required to approve or deny an
application not later than 15 days after receiving it.
The CRRSAA required each governor to provide an assurance in its application that the SEA
would do the following:

distribute information about the EANS program to nonpublic schools and make
the information and application to apply for services or assistance easily
available;

process all applications submitted promptly and approve or deny an application
not later than 30 days after the date of receipt;

ensure that services or assistance that is provided is available to any nonpublic
school that meets three criteria:
1. it is a nonpublic school that under EANS I enrolls low-income students and
is “most impacted by the qualifying emergency” and under EANS II enrolls a

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

22
“significant percentage of low-income students” and is “most impacted by
the qualifying emergency”64;
2. the school submits an application to the SEA at such time, in such manner,
and accompanied by such information that the SEA may require, which shall
include the following: (1) the number and percentage of students from low-
income families enrolled by such nonpublic school in the 2019-2020 school
year, (2) a description of the services that such nonpublic school requests that
the SEA provide, and (3) whether such nonpublic school requesting services
or assistance received a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan that was
made prior to the date of enactment of the CRRSAA, and what the loan
amount was;65 and
3. the school requests services or assistance that is allowable under the EANS
program;

to the extent practicable, obligate all EANS funds provided for services or
assistance to nonpublic schools in an “expedited and timely” manner; and

obligate all EANS funds provided for services or assistance to nonpublic schools
not later than six months after receiving such funds from ED.
While it was not part of the assurances that a governor must provide, an SEA was required to
make the application for services or assistance available to nonpublic schools not later than 30
days after the receipt of EANS funds.
For purposes of the CRRSAA, an SEA was required to prioritize services or assistance to
nonpublic schools that enroll low-income students and were the most impacted by the COVID-19
emergency. The statutory language did not define which students qualify as “low-income” or how
to determine which schools are “most impacted” by the COVID-19 emergency. Under the ARPA,
SEAs may only provide services or assistance to nonpublic schools that serve a “significant
percentage of low-income students” and are “most impacted” by the COVID-19 emergency.
Similar to CRRSAA, these terms were not defined in the ARPA.66

64 The CRRSAA did not establish a threshold with respect to the enrollment of low-income students or define “most
impacted by a qualifying emergency.” Similarly, the ARPA did not define what constitutes a “significant percentage of
low-income students” or define “most impacted by a qualifying emergency.” ED solicited feedback on how the ARPA
terms should be implemented. (For more information, see U.S. Department of Education, Notice Inviting Applications
and Announcing Allocations for the Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools Program under the American Rescue
Plan Act of 2021; Invitation for Comment, April 12, 2021, https://oese.ed.gov/files/2021/04/FINAL-ARP-EANS-
notice-4.12.21.pdf.) The measures that states are required to use with respect to the ARPA are detailed in the state
application for EANS program funds. (U.S. Department of Education, Application for Funding: Emergency Assistance
to Non-Public Schools (EANS) Program Under the American Rescue Plan of 2021 (ARP Act), July 7, 2021, pp. 1-2,
https://oese.ed.gov/files/2021/07/ARP-EANS-Application-7.7.21_FINAL.pdf).
65 The application for EANS I funds is available at U.S. Department of Education, Certification and Agreement:
Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools Program under the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2021 (CRRSA Act), January 11, 2021, https://oese.ed.gov/files/2021/01/
Final_EANS_CertificationandAgreement_FY21_1.11.21.pdf (hereinafter referred to as ED, EANS I application). The
application for EANS II funds is available at U.S. Department of Education, Application for Funding: Emergency
Assistance to Non-Public Schools (EANS) Program Under the American Rescue Plan of 2021 (ARP Act), July 7, 2021,
https://oese.ed.gov/files/2021/07/ARP-EANS-Application-7.7.21_FINAL.pdf (hereinafter referred to as ED, EANS II
application).
66 ED solicited feedback on how the ARPA terms should be implemented (for more information, see U.S. Department
of Education, Notice Inviting Applications and Announcing Allocations for the Emergency Assistance to Non-Public
Schools Program under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021; Invitation for Comment, April 12, 2021,
https://oese.ed.gov/files/2021/04/FINAL-ARP-EANS-notice-4.12.21.pdf).

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

23
An SEA may reserve not more than the greater of $200,000 or 0.5% of the EANS grant for
administering the services and assistance provided under the EANS program to nonpublic
schools.
Each SEA that complies with all of the aforementioned assurances provided by the governor but
has unobligated EANS funds remaining six months after receiving them is required to return the
unobligated funds to the governor for use under the GEER II uses of funds requirements. This
also applies to the EANS program funds provided by ARPA.67 According to ED guidance, any
EANS program funds returned to the governor under the CRRSAA or ARPA remain available to
the governor for use through the full period of availability of the funds.68
Uses of Funds
A nonpublic school receiving services or assistance under the EANS program is required to use
such services or assistance to address educational disruptions from the COVID-19 emergency.
Table 4 provides a complete list of authorized activities under the CRRSAA and ARPA. The
specific wording of these uses of funds in the CRRSAA column has been taken directly from
statutory language.
Table 4. Allowable Uses of EANS Funds Under the CRRSAA and ARPA
CRRSAA
ARPA
“(A) supplies to sanitize, disinfect, and clean school facilities”
Same as the CRRSAA
“(B) personal protective equipment”
Same as the CRRSAA
“(C) improving ventilation systems, including windows or portable air
purification systems to ensure healthy air in the non-public school”
Same as the CRRSAA
“(D) training and professional development for staff on sanitation, the use of
personal protective equipment, and minimizing the spread of infectious
diseases”
Same as the CRRSAA
“(E) physical barriers to facilitate social distancing”
Same as the CRRSAA
“(F) other materials, supplies, or equipment to implement public health
protocols, including guidelines and recommendations from the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention for the reopening and operation of school
facilities to effectively maintain the health and safety of students, educators, and
other staff during the qualifying emergency”
Same as the CRRSAA
“(G) expanding capacity to administer coronavirus testing to effectively
monitor and suppress coronavirus, to conduct surveillance and contact tracing
activities, and to support other activities related to coronavirus testing for
students, teachers, and staff at the non-public school”
Same as the CRRSAA

67 U.S. Department of Education, Application for Funding: Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (EANS)
Program Under the American Rescue Plan of 2021 (ARP Act), July 7, 2021, pp. 1-2, https://oese.ed.gov/files/2021/07/
ARP-EANS-Application-7.7.21_FINAL.pdf.
68 U.S. Department of Education, Frequently Asked Questions: Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (EANS)
Program as Authorized by the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021 (the CRRSA
Act) and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARP Act), September 17, 2021, Item G-4, https://oese.ed.gov/files/
2021/09/Final-EANS-FAQ-Update-9.17.21.pdf. However, the Certification and Agreement for Funding documents for
EANS I and EANS II indicate that the governor must return to the Secretary any EANS funds that are not awarded or
obligated within one year of receiving such funds. It is unclear whether the one year time period begins on the date on
which the state originally received the EANS funds or the date on which any unobligated EANS funds are returned to
the governor. In either case, the one year time period aligns with statutory language but differs from the aformentioned
guidance provided by ED. For more information, see ED, EANS I application and ED, EANS II application.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

24
CRRSAA
ARPA
“(H) educational technology (including hardware, software, connectivity,
assistive technology, and adaptive equipment) to assist students, educators, and
other staff with remote or hybrid learning”
Same as the CRRSAA
(I) redeveloping instructional plans, including curriculum development, for
remote learning, hybrid learning, or to address learning loss
Same as the CRRSAA
“(J) leasing of sites or spaces to ensure safe social distancing to implement
public health protocols, including guidelines and recommendations from the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention”
Same as the CRRSAA
“(K) reasonable transportation costs”
Same as the CRRSAA
“(L) initiating and maintaining education and support services or assistance for
remote learning, hybrid learning, or to address learning loss”
Same as the CRRSAA
“(M) reimbursement for the expenses of any services or assistance described
in this paragraph (except for subparagraphs (C) (except that portable air
purification systems shall be an allowable reimbursable expense), (D), (I), and
(L)) that the non-public school incurred on or after the date of the qualifying
emergency, except that any non-public school that has received a loan
guaranteed under paragraph (36) of section 7(a) of the Small Business Act (15
U.S.C. 636(a)) as of the day prior to the date of enactment of this Act shall not
be eligible for reimbursements described in this paragraph for any expenses
reimbursed through such loan”
Not permitted
Sources: Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of provisions in the Coronavirus Response and Relief
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021 (CRRSAA) included as Division M in the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2021 (CAA; P.L. 116-260), and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA; P.L. 117-2).
As previously discussed, EANS funds cannot be used to provide direct or indirect assistance to
scholarship granting organizations or related entities for elementary or secondary education. In
addition, EANS funds cannot be used to provide or support vouchers, tuition tax credit programs,
education savings accounts, scholarships, scholarship programs, or tuition-assistance programs
for elementary or secondary education.69 Unobligated EANS funds that revert to the governor for
use under the GEER II uses of funds requirements, however, may be used for these purposes
under certain circumstances as detailed in the GEER II discussion above.
Provision of Services and Assistance to Nonpublic Schools
Statutory language requires that a public agency control the EANS funds used to provide services
or assistance to nonpublic schools and that title to materials, equipment, and property purchased
with such funds be retained by a public agency. In addition, a public agency must administer such
funds, services, assistance, materials, equipment, and property. The provision of services and
assistance must be provided by employees of a public agency or through a contract between such
public agency and an individual, association, agency, or organization. Such employee, individual,
agency, or organization has to be independent of the nonpublic school receiving services or
assistance, and such employment and contracts shall be under the control and supervision of the

69 In the applications for EANS I and EANS II funds, ED indicates that the SEA may use funds for these purposes for
students who received such assistance under GEER for the 2020-2021 school year, and only for the same assistance
provided to such students. This does not appear to be permitted by the statutory language (§321(e)(2)). For more
information, see ED, EANS I application, p. 6, and ED, EANS II application, p. 9.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

25
public agency. All services or assistance provided, including equipment, material, and other
items, are required to be secular, neutral, and nonideological.
Under the EANS program as funded by the CRRSAA and the ARPA, private schools and their
students and teachers can benefit from the services and assistance provided. However, the
governor, not the private school, is the recipient of federal financial assistance and is responsible
for ensuring the SEA “administers the EANS program in accordance with applicable laws,
including civil rights laws.”70 In its nonregulatory guidance, ED states, “A non-public school
whose students and teachers receive services or assistance under the EANS program, even if such
services or assistance are delivered through reimbursement, is not a ‘recipient of Federal financial
assistance’.”71 Thus, according to ED’s interpretation of these laws and consistent with ED’s
interpretation of equitable service provisions in the ESEA,72 none of the equitable services
provided through the CARES Act (see subsequent discussion), CRRSAA, or ARPA result in a
nonpublic school being considered a recipient of federal financial assistance.
Paycheck Protection Program
As mentioned previously, a nonpublic school had to state in its application for services or
assistance whether it received a PPP loan prior to the enactment date of the CRRSAA and the
amount of the loan. In addition, to receive services or assistance under the EANS program, a
nonpublic school also had to provide an assurance that it did not and would not apply for a PPP
loan that is made on or after the enactment date of the CRRSAA. The receipt of a PPP loan prior
to the enactment date of the CRRSAA did not make a nonpublic school ineligible to receive
services and assistance under the EANS program.
Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief
(ESSER) Fund
Under the ESSER Fund, grants are provided to SEAs, which are then required to provide at least
90% of the funds received 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
COVID-19 emergency, technology acquisition, mental health services, and activities related to
summer learning. As shown in Table 1, the ESSER Fund received an increasing amount of
appropriations under the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA. The CARES Act provided $13.2
billion dollars for the ESSER Fund (ESSER I), the CRRSAA provided $54.3 billion for the
ESSER Fund (ESSER II), and the ARPA provided $122.8 billion for the ESSER Fund (ESSER
III)—for a total of $190.3 billion. Under ESSER I and ESSER II, the appropriated amount was
then allocated to states by formula. Under ESSER III, as discussed in the next section, the

70 U.S. Department of Education, Frequently Asked Questions: Emergency Assistance to Non-Public Schools (EANS)
Program as Authorized by the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (CRRSAA), March
19, 2021, Item D-12, https://oese.ed.gov/files/2021/03/Final-EANS-FAQ-2.0-3.19.21.pdf (hereinafter referred to as
“U.S. Department of Education, FAQs: EANS Program”).
71 U.S. Department of Education, FAQs: EANS Program, Item D-12.
72 See, for example, U.S. Department of Education, Frequently Asked Questions—General Issues Related to Non-
Public Schools, August 2019, Item 11, https://www2.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/non-public-education/files/onpe-faqs-
aug2019.pdf.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

26
Secretary was required to reserve $800 million from the ESSER III appropriation for homeless
children and youth, leaving $122.0 billion to be allocated by formula to states.
Reservation of ARPA ESSER Funds for Homeless Children and
Youth
Under the ARPA, from the total appropriated for the ESSER Fund, the Secretary is required to
reserve $800 million to identify homeless children and youth and provide these youth with wrap-
around services and assistance needed to attend school and fully participate in school activities.73
The statutory language does not address how these funds should be distributed to other entities to
meet the aforementioned uses of funds. The remaining $121,974,800,000 must be used to award
ESSER Fund grants to SEAs. Neither the CARES Act nor the CRRSAA included a similar
requirement.
Of the $800 million reserved for services and assistance to homeless children and youth, ED
reserved $1 million for national activities and provided the remaining funds to states74 in two
allocations.75 In April 2021, ED awarded 25% ($199,750,000) of the remaining funds to states.
The other 75% ($599,250,000) of the remaining funds was awarded to states following the
completion and approval of an application for funds that states were required to submit to ED in
July 2021.76 Each installment of funds was awarded based on the proportion of funds that each
state received under Title I-A of the ESEA for the prior fiscal year (i.e., FY2020) relative to all
states.
State Grant Application
This section discusses the application requirements that each SEA was required to meet under
ESSER I, ESSER II, and ESSER III to receive funding.
ESSER I
Under ESSER I, the Secretary was required to make ESSER Fund grants available to each SEA
with an approved application. Similar to the GEER Fund grants, the Secretary was 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 had 30 days to approve or deny it. The statutory
language did not provide for an appeals process for any state whose application was denied.

73 For more information on the uses of funds, see U.S. Department of Education, Frequently Asked ARP-HCY
Questions and Answers, 2021, https://oese.ed.gov/offices/american-rescue-plan/american-rescue-plan-elementary-
secondary-school-emergency-relief-homeless-children-youth-arp-hcy/frequently-asked-arp-hcy-questions-and-answers/
; Letter from Miguel A. Cardona, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education, to Chief State School Officers, April 23,
2021, https://oese.ed.gov/files/2021/04/ARP-Homeless-DCL-4.23.pdf; and U.S. Department of Education, Application
for Funding under the American Rescue Plan Act Education for Homeless Children and Youth (ARP-HCY): Second
Disbursement (ARP Homeless II), July 6, 2021, https://oese.ed.gov/files/2021/07/ARP-HCY-Application_FINAL_07-
06-2021.docx.
74 For the purposes of this reservation of funds, states include the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
75 State grant amounts are available at U.S. Department of Education, “American Rescue Plan Supporting the Needs of
Homeless Children and Youth: Reservation from the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund,” July
2, 2021, https://oese.ed.gov/files/2021/07/Revised-Attachment-1-ARP-Homeless-I-II-Total-Allocations.docx.
76 U.S. Department of Education, Application for Funding under the American Rescue Plan Act Education for
Homeless Children and Youth (ARP-HCY): Second Disbursement (ARP Homeless II), July 6, 2021,
https://oese.ed.gov/files/2021/07/ARP-HCY-Application_FINAL_07-06-2021.docx.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

27
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.77 To
apply, each state had to complete a Certification and Agreement form.78 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 required each state to provide programmatic, fiscal, and
reporting assurances. These included, for example, assurances related to the distribution of at
least 90% of the funds received to LEAs, and to the statutory requirement that LEAs provide
equitable services to students and teachers in nonpublic schools. Required assurances also
pertained to the provision of technical assistance to LEAs related to remote learning, and the use
of funds retained by the SEA.
The application further required the SEA to describe the information the SEA could request that
LEAs include in their subgrant applications. In addition, it required the SEA to specify the extent
to which the SEA intended 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.”79 A
governor also had to include an assurance that the state would comply with the reporting
requirements included in Section 15011(b)(2) of Division B of the CARES Act (see the
“Reporting Requirements” section) 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 was required to provide ED with a report that includes a budget specifying how
the SEA would use funds reserved at the state level.
ESSER II
Under ESSER II, the Secretary was required to award funds to each SEA with an approved
application for ESSER I within 30 days of enactment of the CRRSAA. All SEAs had an approved
application for ESSER I, so all SEAs were eligible to receive ESSER II funds without having to
complete an application.
ESSER III
The ARPA did not require SEAs to have an approved application on file or to submit a new
application. The statutory language did not address the application process. In addition, it did not
establish any deadlines for when ED needed to allocate funds to SEAs.
In the absence of statutory language, ED made two-thirds of the ESSER III funds available for
grants to SEAs in March 2021. By accepting the funds, an SEA had to agree to submit a plan that
contained information that the Secretary may “reasonably require.” The plan had to be submitted

77 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.
78 A copy of the Certification and Agreement form is available at https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/04/ESSERF-
Certification-and-Agreement-2.pdf.
79 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.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

28
based on the timeline established by the Secretary for an SEA to receive the remaining one-third
of its ESSER III grant.
In April 2021, ED released the application that SEAs were required to complete as a condition of
receiving ESSER III funds.80 The application required an SEA to provide information on its
current status and needs, how the SEA would support LEAs in safely reopening schools and
sustaining the safe operation of schools, the SEA’s plans for consultation and for coordinating the
use of ESSER III funds with other resources to meet the needs of students, the SEA’s evidence-
based strategies for maximizing the use of funds to support students, how the SEA would support
LEAs in developing high-quality plans for their use of ESSER III funds, strategies the SEA would
use to support and stabilize the educator workforce and make staffing decisions, and how the SEA
is building capacity at the SEA and LEA levels to ensure high-quality data collection and
reporting and to ensure funds are used for their intended purposes. The application also included
several required assurances, including those related to the uses of funds, maintenance of effort,
maintenance of equity, and civil rights protections.
Formula Grants to SEAs
ESSER Fund appropriations were awarded to states based on their relative shares of grants
awarded under Title I-A of the ESEA for the most recent fiscal year. The ESSER Fund state
grants calculated by ED under the CARES Act were based on FY2019 Title I-A grants. The
ESSER Fund state grants calculated by ED under the CRRSAA and ARPA were based on
FY2020 Title I-A grants (see Appendix E). 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.81 Thus, ED calculated state grants for the ESSER Fund using Title I-A grants with no
hold harmless provisions applied. Because the underlying data used for calculating ESSER Fund
state grants under the CRRSAA and ARPA are more recent than the underlying data used by ED
in calculating ESSER Fund state grants under the CARES Act, some states’ shares of the
appropriations available for the ESSER Fund differ under each act.
Table E-1, Table E-2, Table E-3, and Table E-4 present actual state grant amounts under the
ESSER Fund as provided under the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA, respectively. Table E-1,
Table E-2, and Table E-3 also show the amount of funds that states were required to reserve for
various purposes under each of the laws. Table E-3 also details the amount of funding that LEAs
were required to reserve for learning loss. Table E-4 provides a summary of state grant amounts
across the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA.
Formula Grants to LEAs
Under the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA, each state is required to use at least 90% of the
funds received to make subgrants to LEAs in proportion to each LEA’s share of Title I-A grants
made to all LEAs in the state during the most recent fiscal year. The ESSER I grants to LEAs

80 For more information, see Letter from Miguel A. Cardona, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education, to Chief State
School Officers, April 21, 2021, https://oese.ed.gov/files/2021/04/21-002903-ARP-application-DCL_FINAL.pdf, and
U.S. Department of Education, State Plan for the American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency
Relief Fund, April 21, 2021, https://oese.ed.gov/files/2021/04/ARP-ESSER-State-Plan-Template-04-20-
2021_130PM.pdf.
81 The requirement to determine state grants with no hold harmless provisions applied is in Section 1122(c)(3) of the
ESEA. For more information on Title I-A formulas, see CRS Report R44461, Allocation of Funds Under Title I-A of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

29
were calculated based on FY2019 Title I-A grants. The ESSER II and ESSER III grants to LEAs
were calculated based on FY2020 Title I-A grants.
The ARPA included a new requirement that an SEA must award grants to LEAs in an “expedited
and timely manner and, to the extent practicable, not later than 60 days” after the SEA received
the funds. Neither the CARES Act nor the CRRSAA included a similar requirement.
Other State Reservations of Funds
Under ESSER I and ESSER II, an SEA was permitted to reserve up to 10% of the funds received
for administration and for other state activities as determined by the SEA “to address issues
responding to coronavirus.” An SEA could reserve no more than 0.5% of the total grant amount
for administration.
While SEAs were permitted to reserve ESSER III funds for administration and other state
activities, there are additional requirements for the reservation of funds by the SEA. Under
ESSER III, SEAs were required to reserve at least 5% of the total grant award for activities to
address learning loss. SEAs also were required to reserve at least 1% of the total grant award for
evidence-based summer enrichment programs and at least 1% for “evidence-based
comprehensive” afterschool programs. Each SEA was permitted to reserve up to 0.5% of its total
grant award for administration. Any remaining funds could be used by the SEA for other state
activities as determined by the SEA to “address issues responding to coronavirus.”
For purposes of this report, it was assumed that SEAs would reserve the full 0.5% for
administration under each ESSER Fund enacted by the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA.
Under the CARES Act and CRRSAA, this would leave a maximum of 9.5% for other state
activities. Under the ARPA, this would leave a maximum of 2.5% for other state activities. Any
funds not used for administration could be used for other state activities.
The SEA grant reservation requirements and the allocation of funds to LEAs under the CARES
Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA are summarized in Table 5.
Table 5. Summary of SEA Grant Reservation Requirements Under the ESSER Fund
Included in the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Percentage of Total SEA Grant Award to Be Reserved or
Allocated by the SEA
SEA Reservations and
Allocations
CARES Act
CRRSAA
ARPA
Allocation of funds for grants to LEAs
At least 90.0%
At least 90.0%
At least 90.0%a
Reservation of funds for other state
activitiesb
At most 9.5%
At most 9.5%
At most 2.5%
Reservation of funds for
administrationb
At most 0.5%
At most 0.5%
At most 0.5%
Reservation of funds for activities to
address learning loss
NA
NA
At least 5.0%
Reservation of funds for summer
enrichment activities
NA
NA
At least 1.0%
Reservation of funds for afterschool
programs
NA
NA
At least 1.0%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

30
Sources: Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of provisions in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act (CARES Act; P.L. 116-136); the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2021 (CRRSAA) included as Division M in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021
(CAA; P.L. 116-260), and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA; P.L. 117-2).
a.
LEAs are required to reserve at least 20.0% of the funds received to address learning loss.
b.
It was assumed that each state would reserve the full 0.5% for administrative purposes. Any funds not used
for administrative purposes could be used for other state activities.
LEA Plan to Return to In-Person Instruction
The ARPA included a new requirement for LEAs receiving ARPA funds. Within 30 days of
receipt of such funds, an LEA was required to make publicly available on its website a plan for
the “safe return to in-person instruction and continuity of services.” Prior to making the plan
publicly available, the LEA must seek public comments on it and take such comments into
account in the development of the plan. Neither the CARES Act nor the CRRSAA included a
similar requirement.
LEA Uses of Funds
Funds provided to LEAs under the ESSER Fund can be used for a multitude of purposes. Under
the ARPA, however, LEAs must reserve at least 20% of their funds to address learning loss before
using funds for other activities. While both the CRRSAA and ARPA added additional uses of
funds to the uses of funds specified in the CARES Act, these additional uses were already
permissible under the CARES Act.82 For example, the CRRSAA and ARPA included statutory
language allowing ESSER funds for the following two purposes:
1. “School facility repairs and improvements to enable operation of schools to
reduce risk of virus transmission and exposure to environmental health hazards,
and to support student health needs.”
2. “Inspection, testing, maintenance, repair, replacement, and upgrade projects to
improve the indoor air quality in school facilities, including mechanical and non-
mechanical heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, filtering,
purification and other air cleaning, fans, control systems, and window and door
repair and replacement.”
While not included in the CARES Act statutory language, school facility repairs and
improvements and projects to improve the indoor air quality in school facilities also are allowable
uses of funds under the CARES Act.
As previously discussed, funds for ESF programs were provided to “prevent, prepare for, and
respond to coronavirus”.83 Table 6 provides a list of all authorized activities under each of the
acts that may be undertaken to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The specific
wording of the uses of funds has been taken directly from statutory language (where applicable).

82 See, for example, U.S. Department of Education, Fact Sheet: Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief
Fund II, Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021, 2021, https://oese.ed.gov/files/
2021/01/Final_ESSERII_Factsheet_1.5.21.pdf.
83 See for example, the CARES Act, Division B provisions that apply to the Department of Education or U.S.
Department of Education, Frequently Asked Questions: Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Programs
and Governor’s Emergency Education Relief Programs, December 7, 2022, https://oese.ed.gov/files/2022/12/ESSER-
and-GEER-Use-of-Funds-FAQs-December-7-2022-Update.pdf.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

31
Table 6. Allowable Uses of ESSER Funds by LEAs Under the CARES Act, CRRSAA,
and ARPA
CARES Act
CRRSAA
ARPA
“Any activity authorized by the
ESEA of 1965, including the Native
Hawaiian Education Act and the
Alaska Native Educational Equity,
Support, and Assistance Act (20
U.S.C. 6301 et seq.), the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (20
U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) (‘‘IDEA’’), the
Adult Education and Family Literacy
Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.), the
Carl D. Perkins Career and
Technical Education Act of 2006
(20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.) (‘‘the
Perkins Act’’), or subtitle B of title
VII of the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.
11431 et seq.).”
Same as the CARES Act.
Similar to the CARES Act, but does
not include a specific reference to
the Native Hawaiian Education Act
and the Alaska Native Educational
Equity, Support, and Assistance Act.
These acts are included in the
ESEA, so it is not a substantive
change. However, using funds under
Title VII-B of the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act is no
longer included in the list of uses of
funds. The ARPA, unlike the CARES
Act or CRRSAA, requires the
Secretary to reserve $800 million
from the total ESSER appropriation
for homeless children and youth.
“Coordination of preparedness and
response efforts of local educational
agencies with State, local, Tribal,
and territorial public health
Departments, and other relevant
agencies, to improve coordinated
responses among such entities to
prevent, prepare for, and respond
to coronavirus.”
Same as the CARES Act.
Same as the CARES Act.
“Providing principals and other
school leaders with the resources
necessary to address the needs of
their individual schools.”
Same as the CARES Act.
Not included in statutory language.
“Activities to address 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 how outreach and
service delivery will meet the needs
of each population.”
Same as the CARES Act.
Same as the CARES Act.
“Developing and implementing
procedures and systems to improve
the preparedness and response
efforts of local educational
agencies.”
Same as the CARES Act.
Same as the CARES Act.
“Training and professional
development for staff of the local
educational agency on sanitation
and minimizing the spread of
infectious diseases.”
Same as the CARES Act.
Same as the CARES Act.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

32
CARES Act
CRRSAA
ARPA
“Purchasing supplies to sanitize and
clean the facilities of a local
educational agency, including
buildings operated by such agency.”
Same as the CARES Act.
Same as the CARES Act.
“Planning for and coordinating
during long-term closures, including
for how to provide meals to eligible
students, how to provide
technology for online learning to all
students, how to provide guidance
for carrying out requirements
under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (20
U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and how to
ensure other educational services
can continue to be provided
consistent with all Federal, State,
and local requirements.”
Similar to the CARES Act:
“Planning for, coordinating, and
implementing activities during long-
term closures, including providing
meals to eligible students, providing
technology for online learning to all
students, providing guidance for
carrying out requirements under
the IDEA and ensuring other
educational services can continue to
be provided consistent with all
Federal, State, and local
requirements.”
Same as the CRRSAA.
“Purchasing educational technology
(including hardware, software, and
connectivity) for students who are
served by the local educational
agency that aids in regular and
substantive educational interaction
between students and their
classroom instructors, including
low-income students and students
with disabilities, which may include
assistive technology or adaptive
equipment.”
Same as the CARES Act.
Same as the CARES Act.
“Providing mental health services
and supports.”
Same as the CARES Act.
Similar to the CARES Act:
“Providing mental health services
and supports, including through the
implementation of evidence-based
full-service community schools.”
“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.”
Similar to the CARES Act.
Changes the phrase “students with
disabilities” to “children with
disabilities.”

Same as the CRRSAA.
“Other activities that are necessary
to maintain the operation of and
continuity of services in local
educational agencies and continuing
to employ existing staff of the local
educational agency.”
Same as the CARES Act.
Same as the CARES Act.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

33
CARES Act
CRRSAA
ARPA
Not included in statutory language.
“Addressing learning loss among
students, including low-income
students, children with disabilities,
English learners, racial and ethnic
minorities, students experiencing
homelessness, and children and
youth in foster care, of the local
educational agency, including by—
(A) Administering and using high-
quality assessments that are valid
and reliable, to accurately assess
students’ academic progress and
assist educators in meeting
students’ academic needs, including
through differentiating instruction.
(B) Implementing evidence-based
activities to meet the
comprehensive needs of students.
(C) Providing information and
assistance to parents and families
on how they can effectively support
students, including in a distance
learning environment.
(D) Tracking student attendance
and improving student engagement
in distance education.”
Same as the CRRSAA.
Not included in statutory language.
“School facility repairs and
improvements to enable operation
of schools to reduce risk of virus
transmission and exposure to
environmental health hazards, and
to support student health needs.”
Same as the CRRSAA.
Not included in statutory language.
“Inspection, testing, maintenance,
repair, replacement, and upgrade
projects to improve the indoor air
quality in school facilities, including
mechanical and non-mechanical
heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning systems, filtering,
purification and other air cleaning,
fans, control systems, and window
and door repair and replacement.”
Same as the CRRSAA.
Not included in statutory language.
Not included in statutory language.
“Developing strategies and
implementing public health
protocols including, to the greatest
extent practicable, policies in line
with guidance from the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention for
the reopening and operation of
school facilities to effectively
maintain the health and safety of
students, educators, and other
staff.”
Sources: Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of provisions in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act (CARES Act; P.L. 116-136); the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

34
Appropriations Act, 2021 (CRRSAA) included as Division M in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021
(CAA; P.L. 116-260), and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA; P.L. 117-2).
Reallocation of Funds
Under ESSER I, ESSER II, and ESSER III, 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 reallocate such
funds to the remaining states based on the formula used to provide the initial amounts.
Equitable Services for Private School Students and
Teachers Under the CARES Act
In addition to assistance available to nonpublic schools through the EANS program (see previous
discussion), the CARES Act included equitable services requirements that apply to funds received
by LEAs under the GEER I and the ESSER I. This section provides an overview of these
requirements and discusses the controversy related to them stemming from ED’s interpretation of
the statutory provisions.
Under the CARES Act, an LEA that received funds under the GEER Fund or the ESSER Fund is
subject to equitable services requirements. More specifically, LEAs receiving such funds are
required to provide equitable services to students and teachers in nonpublic schools, as
determined in consultation with representatives of nonpublic schools, in the same manner as
under Section 1117 of the ESEA. After reserving the required amount of funding to provide
services for nonpublic 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 nonpublic 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 nonpublic 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 nonpublic school (i.e., at a nonpublic 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 nonpublic school student resides
is responsible for providing services to students in the school that the nonpublic school student
attends, even if that school is in another LEA.84 The provision of Title I-A services is not limited
to low-income public school or nonpublic school students.85

84 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 Title I-A funds that were generated by students from low-income families who reside in
participating Title 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 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as Amended 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.
85 With respect to private school students, “in general, to be eligible for Title I services, a private school child must
reside in a participating Title 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).

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

35
ED’s initial interpretation of this provision indicated that only a portion of the Section 1117
provisions applied. Nonbinding guidance from ED86 indicated that the determination of the share
of funds available to serve nonpublic school students from GEER Fund and ESSER Fund grants
received by LEAs should be based on total enrollment in nonpublic schools located in the LEA.
The guidance explained that all 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
nonpublic school students. In practice, this means that LEAs would determine the amount of
funding to reserve to provide services to nonpublic school students and teachers based on the total
number of nonpublic school students enrolled in the LEA relative to total public and nonpublic
school enrollment. For some LEAs, this may result in them reserving a substantially 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
nonpublic school students relative to the total number of eligible low-income nonpublic and
public school students.87
Some Members of Congress indicated that they did not agree that the guidance issued by ED
reflects congressional intent. For example, former Senator Lamar Alexander, then-Chair of the
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, stated that he thought, and he
believed that most Members also thought, that LEAs would reserve funds to serve nonpublic
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.88 In addition, several
Democratic Members sent a letter to Secretary DeVos indicating that they did not believe that the
ED guidance reflects congressional intent.89 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 nonpublic schools to be made
based on the number of nonpublic 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
nonpublic school students) rather than based on the count of all students attending nonpublic
schools in the LEA.
The letter further stated that if Congress had wanted to have funding determined based on the
number of students attending all nonpublic schools and have LEAs serve teachers and students
attending all nonpublic schools located in the LEA, it could have cited the equitable services

86 ED has removed the guidance from its website, as the guidance does not match the interim final rule that ED
published in July. The guidance is available to congressional clients from the authors of this report upon request.
87 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.
88 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.
89 Letter from Representative Robert C. “Bobby” Scott, Chair, Committee on Education and Labor, U.S. House of
Representatives; Representative Rosa L. DeLauro, Chair, Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Health and
Human Services, Labor, and Education and Other Related Services, U.S. House of Representatives; and Senator Patty
Murray, Ranking Member, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, U.S. Senate, to The 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.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

36
provisions included in ESEA Section 8501 rather than Section 1117. Under the Section 8501
provision, all nonpublic 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
nonpublic school students and teachers. In addition, under Section 8501 the determination of
eligible nonpublic school students is based on the number of eligible nonpublic school students
attending nonpublic schools in the LEA.
On July 1, 2020, ED published an interim final rule (IFR) providing LEAs with three options for
implementing the equitable services provision.90 (ED also removed the prior guidance from its
website.) Under one option, an LEA could determine the proportional share based on enrollment
in participating nonpublic elementary and secondary schools in the LEA compared to the total
enrollment in public and participating nonpublic elementary and secondary schools in the LEA
(total enrollment option).
The remaining options included in the IFR were available to LEAs only if they agreed to use the
funds available for public education exclusively to serve students and teachers in public Title I-A
schools. If this condition was met, an LEA could determine the share of funds to be reserved to
serve students and teachers in nonpublic 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 school year 2019-
2020, or (2) determining the number of children ages 5-17 who are from low-income families and
attend each nonpublic school in the LEA that would 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 nonpublic elementary and secondary schools in the LEA. In addition,
if an LEA chose to implement one of these two options, it was required comply with the
supplement not supplant requirement included in Section 1118(b) of the ESEA.91 Among other
things, this requirement prohibited the LEA from allocating CARES Act funds to Title I-A
schools and then redirecting state or local funds to non-Title I-A schools.
The IFR was subsequently challenged in four U.S. district courts.92 On September 4, 2020, in
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Elisabeth D. DeVos, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia issued an opinion93 and an order94 vacating the IFR.
ED did not appeal the rulings. In revised guidance following the court rulings, ED indicated that

90 U.S. Department of Education, “CARES Act Programs; Equitable Services to Students and Teachers in Non-Public
Schools,” 85 Federal Register 39479-39488, July 1, 2020.
91 The CARES Act did not apply a supplement not supplant requirement to either the GEER Fund or the ESSER Fund.
For more information about the Title I-A supplement not supplant requirement, see CRS In Focus IF10405, Fiscal
Accountability Requirements That Apply to Title I-A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).
92 See Washington v. DeVos, No. 2:20-cv-1119-BJR, 2020 WL 5079038 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 21, 2020) (granting
preliminary injunction against the Department); Michigan v. DeVos, No. 3:20-cv-4478-JD, 2020 WL 5074397 (N.D.
Cal. Aug. 26, 2020) (granting preliminary injunction against the Department); NAACP v. DeVos, No. 20-cv-1996
(DLF), 2020 WL 5291406 (D. D.C. Sept. 4, 2020) (vacating the IFR); and Council of Parent Attorneys & Advocates,
Inc. v. DeVos, No. 1:20-cv-2310-GLR (D. Md.); U.S. Department of Education, Providing Equitable Services to
Students and Teachers in Non-Public Schools Under the CARES Act Programs, October 9, 2020, p. ii,
https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/10/Providing-Equitable-Services-under-the-CARES-Act-Programs-Update-10-9-
2020.pdf (hereinafter referred to as “U.S. Department of Education, Providing Equitable Services Under the CARES
Act Programs.”)
93 Memorandum Opinion, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Elisabeth D. DeVos, No. 20-
cv-1996 (DLF) (United States District Court for the District of Columbia 2020), September 4, 2020,
https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/09/NAACP-v-DeVos-DDC_Opinion-Granting-Partial-Summary-Judgment.pdf.
94 Order, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Elisabeth D. DeVos, No. 20-cv-1996 (DLF)
(United States District Court for the District of Columbia 2020), September 4, 2020, https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/09/
NAACP-v-DeVos-DDC_Order-granting-Partial-SJ-09-04-2020.pdf.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

37
LEAs must calculate the proportional share for equitable services using the formula included in
ESEA Section 1117.95 In determining the proportional share, LEAs may use the proportional
share calculated for Title I-A purposes from either school year 2019-2020 or school year 2020-
2021. However, unlike the requirements of Section 1117, ED determined that the LEA in which a
nonpublic school is located should provide the equitable services, which is similar to the
provision of services under ESEA Title VIII-F-1.96
Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF)
The HEERF provides funds to IHEs to address needs related to the COVID-19 emergency. IHEs
may variously use awards to provide grant aid to students, support the transition to distance
education, defray institutional expenses incurred as a result of the emergency, and provide support
services to students.
As shown in Table 1, the HEERF has received increasing levels of appropriations under each of
the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA. The CARES Act provided $13.9 billion for the HEERF
(HEERF I), the CRRSAA provided $22.7 billion (HEERF II), and the ARPA provided $39.6
billion (HEERF III). The amounts available for the HEERF are awarded to IHEs through three
types of programs: (1) direct grants to IHEs; (2) the minority serving institutions (MSIs)
programs authorized under Title III-A, Title III-B, Title V-A, and Title VII-A-4 of the Higher
Education Act (HEA);97 and (3) the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education
(FIPSE) authorized under HEA Title VII-B. The reservation of funds for the three types of
programs, the allocation of funds within the three types of programs, application requirements,
and allowable uses of funds differ between each of HEERF I, HEERF II, and HEERF III. This
section provides an overview of the statutory requirements and secretarial discretion exercised
under the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA.
The reservation requirements for the three types of programs within the HEERF under the
CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA are summarized in Table 7. The funds represented by each
reservation are also displayed. The CRRSAA required that ED augment the reservation for direct
grants to public and private nonprofit IHEs under CRRSAA with CARES Act HEERF direct
grant funds and Safe Schools and Citizenship Education funds that were unobligated as of the
date of enactment of CRRSAA.98 As a consequence, an additional $317.8 million was repurposed
from the CARES Act to the CRRSAA reservation for direct grants to public and private nonprofit
IHEs (Table 7).99 The repurposed funds are not reflected in Table 1. Actual amounts distributed
to IHEs under each program will differ.

95 U.S. Department of Education, Providing Equitable Services Under the CARES Act Programs, Item 10.
96 U.S. Department of Education, Providing Equitable Services Under the CARES Act Programs, Item 4.
97 For more information on Programs for Minority Serving Institutions, see CRS Report R43237, Programs for
Minority-Serving Institutions Under the Higher Education Act.
98 The CARES Act provided $100,000,000 under the Safe Schools and Citizenship Education account to prevent,
prepare for, and respond to COVID-19, by supplementing funds otherwise available for Project School Emergency
Response to Violence (SERV). Project SERV funds short-term and long-term education-related services for LEAs and
IHEs to help them recover from a violent or traumatic event in which the learning environment has been disrupted.
Such funds that were previously designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to the Balanced Budget
and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 are designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to
Section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
99 U.S. Department of Education, HEERF II: Institutional Portion for Public and Nonprofit Institutions (a)(1),
Methodology for Calculating Allocations, https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/heerfiiinstitutional.html. Such
repurposed funds are designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to Section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

38
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58), enacted on November 15, 2021, and the
Keep Kids Fed Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-158), enacted on June 25, 2022, rescinded a portion of the
unobligated HEERF balances remaining at the time. P.L. 117-58 rescinded $353 million from the
CARES Act and CRRSAA direct grants and MSI programs. P.L. 117-158 rescinded an additional
$400 million from the ARPA direct grants to proprietary IHEs program. The rescission is not
reflected in Table 1 or Table 7.

CRS-39
Table 7. Reservations of Funds Under the HEERF as Provided by the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA
(Dollars in thousands)

CARES Act
CRRSAA
ARPA
Total
Program
Required
Reservation
Amount
Required
Reservation
Amount
Required
Reservation
Amount
Amount
Direct Grants to Institutions of Higher
Education (IHEs): public, private nonprofit,
and proprietary IHEs and postsecondary
vocational institutions
90.0%
$12,557,255
NA
NA
NA
NA
$12,557,255
Direct Grants to IHEs: public and private
nonprofit IHEs and postsecondary vocational
institutions
NA
NA
89.0%
$20,518,302a
91.0%
$36,021,959
$56,540,261
Direct Grants to IHEs: proprietary IHEs
NA
NA
3.0%
$680,914
1.0%
$395,846
$1,076,760
Subtotal for Direct Grants to IHEs
—
$12,557,255
—
$21,199,216a
—
$36,417,804
$70,174,275
Programs for Minority Serving Institutions
7.5%
$1,046,438
7.5%
$1,702,285
7.5%
$2,968,843
$5,717,566
Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary
Education
2.5%
$433,147b
0.5%
$113,486
0.5%
$197,923
$744,555
Total Fundingc
100.0%
$14,036,839b
100.0%
$23,014,987a
100.0%
$39,584,570
$76,636,396
Sources: Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of provisions in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act; P.L. 116-136); the
Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021 (CRRSAA) included as Division M in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA; P.L.
116-260), the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA; P.L. 117-2); and U.S. Department of Education documentation.
Notes: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. NA = not applicable.
a.
This amount includes an additional $317,851,129 of designated CARES Act funds that were unobligated as of December 27, 2020, in accordance with the CRRSAA.
U.S. Department of Education, HEERF II: Institutional Portion for Public and Nonprofit Institutions (a)(1), Methodology for Calculating Allocations,
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/heerfiiinstitutional.html.
b.
The estimated allocations and actual awards under the CARES Act FIPSE program exceeded the initial reservation for such purpose by $84,334,327.
c.
These amounts do not take into account $753 million in rescissions enacted by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58) and the Keep Kids Fed Act
of 2022 (P.L. 117-158).

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

40
Direct Grants
The HEERF direct grants were allocated to public, private nonprofit, and proprietary IHEs and
postsecondary vocational institutions, as defined in Section 102 of the HEA,100 based on the
enrollment of Pell Grant recipients and students who were not Pell Grant recipients who were and
were not enrolled exclusively in distance education prior to the COVID-19 emergency.101 The
specific formula factors and associated weights under the formula for the CARES Act, CRRSAA,
and ARPA are shown in Table 8.
Table 8. Percentage of Funds Allocated by Each Formula Factor For the HEERF
Direct Grants to IHEs Under the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA

CARES Act
CRRSAA
ARPA
Formula Factor
Percentage of Appropriation
Full-time equivalent (FTE) enrollment of Pell Grant
recipients who were not enrolled exclusively in distance
education prior to the COVID-19 emergency, relative to
the total FTE enrollment of such individuals in all eligible
institutions of higher education (IHEs).
75.0%
37.5%
37.5%
12-month unduplicated headcount of Pell Grant recipients
who were not enrolled exclusively in distance education
prior to the COVID-19 emergency, relative to the total
unduplicated headcount of such individuals in all eligible
IHEs.
NA
37.5%
37.5%
FTE enrollment of students who were not Pell Grant
recipients and were not enrolled exclusively in distance
education prior to the COVID-19 emergency, relative to
the total FTE enrollment of such individuals in all eligible
IHEs.
25.0%
11.5%
11.5%
12-month unduplicated headcount of students who were
not Pell Grant recipients and were not enrolled exclusively
in distance education prior to the COVID-19 emergency,
relative to the total unduplicated headcount of such
individuals in all eligible IHEs.
NA
11.5%
11.5%
FTE enrollment of Pell Grant recipients who were
enrolled exclusively in distance education prior to the
COVID-19 emergency, relative to the total FTE
enrollment of such individuals in all eligible IHEs.
NA
1.0%
1.0%
12-month unduplicated headcount of Pell Grant recipients
who were enrolled exclusively in distance education prior
to the COVID-19 emergency, relative to the total
unduplicated headcount of such individuals in all eligible
IHEs.
NA
1.0%
1.0%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Sources: Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of provisions in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act (CARES Act; P.L. 116-136); the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental

100 IHEs outside the United States, as defined in HEA Section 102(a)(2), are excluded.
101 For a description of the Pell Grant program, see CRS Report R45418, Federal Pell Grant Program of the Higher
Education Act: Primer.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

41
Appropriations Act, 2021 (CRRSAA) included as Division M in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021
(CAA; P.L. 116-260), and the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA; P.L. 117-2).
Note: NA = not applicable.
Although not required by the statutory provisions, ED reserved $50 million of the CARES Act
HEERF funds for direct grants for institutions that may have been eligible for an allocation but
were excluded from the original estimates.102 ED did not reserve funds for such a purpose from
the CRRSAA or ARPA.
Appendix F presents estimated IHE allocations aggregated at the institutional sector level (e.g.,
public two-year) and state level for the HEERF direct grants, as funded under the CARES Act,
CRRSAA, ARPA, and all of the acts combined. Actual amounts awarded to IHEs may differ as
IHEs must apply and/or agree to accept the terms and conditions of the awards, and IHEs may
decline a portion of the allocation. Specifically, Table F-1 displays IHE allocations aggregated at
the institutional sector level; Table F-2, Table F-3, and Table F-4 show the IHE allocations
aggregated at the state level for each act; and Table F-5 provides a summary of IHE allocations
aggregated at the state level across the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA.
Minority Serving Institutions Programs
The HEA authorizes several grant programs to assist IHEs that serve high concentrations of
minority and/or financially needy students. These programs are collectively known as the MSI
programs. Under the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA, the HEERF MSI funds were to be
allocated to the MSI programs authorized under HEA Titles III-A, III-B, V-A, V-B, and VII-A-4
according to each program’s proportional share of funds allocated under the Further Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2020 (P.L. 116-94).103 The actual reservations of funds for each of the select
MSI programs within the HEERF under the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA are summarized
in Table 9.
Table 9. Actual Reservations of Funds for the MSI Programs Under HEERF of the
CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA
(Programs sorted in order of statutory authority; dollars in thousands)
Program
CARES
Act
CRRSAA
ARPA
Total
Strengthening Institutions Program (HEA, Title III-A)
$148,591
$241,719
$421,565
$811,874
Strengthening American Indian Tribally Controlled
Colleges and Universities (HEA, Title III-A)
$50,469
$82,101
$143,186
$275,756
Strengthening Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-
Serving Institutions (HEA, Title III-A)
$25,239
$41,058
$71,607
$137,904
Strengthening Predominantly Black Institutions (HEA,
Title III-A)

$18,182
$29,577
$51,583
$99,341
Strengthening Native American-Serving, Nontribal
Institutions (HEA, Title III-A)
$6,123
$9,960
$17,370
$33,452

102 U.S. Department of Education, “Methodology for Calculating Allocations per Section 18004(a)(1) of the CARES
Act,” available at https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/heerf90percentformulaallocationexplanation.pdf.
103 In FY2020, the Minority Science and Engineering Improvement Program (MSEIP) authorized under HEA Title III-
E received $12.8 million in discretionary appropriations. The CARES Act does not authorize the Secretary to allocate
funds to the MSEIP.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

42
Program
CARES
Act
CRRSAA
ARPA
Total
Strengthening Asian American and Native American
Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions (HEA, Title III-A)
$6,123
$9,960
$17,370
$33,452
Strengthening Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HBCUs) (HEA, Title III-B)
$447,466
$727,912
$1,269,503
$2,444,881
Strengthening Historically Black Graduate Institutions
(HEA, Title III-B)
$115,720
$188,247
$328,308
$632,275
Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HEA, Title
V-A)
$197,123
$320,668
$559,256
$1,077,047
Promoting Postbaccalaureate Opportunities for
Hispanic Americans (HEA, Title V-B)
$17,687
$28,772
$50,179
$96,638
Masters Degrees at HBCUs (HEA, Title VII-A-4)
$13,716
$22,313
$38,915
$74,944
Totala
$1,046,438
$1,702,285
$2,968,843
$5,717,566
Sources: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on allocation data published by the U.S.
Department of Education (ED), Formula Allocations for Section 18004 of the CARES Act, https://www2.ed.gov/
about/offices/list/ope/caresact.html as of May 22, 2020, and ED allocation data for Section 314(a)(2) of the
CRRSAA, https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/crrsaa.html as of July 14, 2021; and ED, “U.S. Department of
Education Announces $3.2 Billion in Additional Higher Education Emergency Relief Funds to Support Students at
Historic and Under-Resourced Institutions,” press release, July 29, 2021.
a.
These amounts do not take into account $753 million in rescissions enacted by the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58) and the Keep Kids Fed Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-158).
The allocation of funds to IHEs within some MSI programs under the CARES Act differs from
that under the CRRSAA and ARPA. The CARES Act does not specify how program funds should
be distributed among IHEs eligible to participate in the MSI programs. Generally, the Secretary
allocated funds within each MSI program using the same formula established to distribute the
direct grants to IHEs.
Under the CRRSAA and ARPA, most of the grants within each MSI program were to be allocated
in general accordance with the direct grants formula—with several exceptions, as follows:

Funds for the Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) program
and Master’s Degree Programs at HBCUs were to be allocated as follows: 70%
in accordance with each IHE’s 12-month unduplicated headcount of students
who were Pell Grant recipients, relative to the total unduplicated headcount of
such individuals at all eligible HBCUs; 20% in accordance with each IHE’s 12-
month unduplicated headcount of all students relative to the total unduplicated
headcount of such individuals at all eligible HBCUs; and 10% in accordance with
each IHE’s inverse share of total endowments.104 In order to implement the
inverse share of total endowments, ED issued regulations to treat an institution
that has a total endowment of $0-$1.0 million as having an endowment of $1.0
million.105 Under the ARPA, institutions with endowments of less than $1.0

104 The inverse share of total endowments is the ratio of total endowment size at all eligible institutions to the
endowment size at each such institution.
105 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, “Calculation of the Endowment Factor for
Allocations to Historically Black Colleges and Universities Under Section 314(a)(2)(A) of the Coronavirus Response
and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021,” 86 Federal Register 21190-21195, April 22, 2021.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

43
million, including $0 endowments, were adjusted to $1.0 million before
calculating the inverse endowment share.

Funds for the Historically Black Graduate Institutions (HBGIs) program were to
be allocated to eligible IHEs in accordance with each such IHE’s share of the
program’s FY2020 appropriation.

Funds for the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCUs) program
were to be allocated to eligible IHEs in accordance with the HEA TCCU program
formula.
Appendix F presents estimated IHE allocations aggregated at the institutional sector level (e.g.,
public two-year) and state level for the HEERF MSI programs, as funded under the CARES Act,
CRRSAA, ARPA, and all of the acts combined. Actual amounts awarded to IHEs may differ as
IHEs must apply and/or agree to accept the terms and conditions of the awards, and IHEs may
decline a portion of the allocation. Specifically, Table F-1 displays IHE allocations aggregated at
the institutional sector level; Table F-2, Table F-3, and Table F-4 show the IHE allocations
aggregated at the state level for each act; and Table F-5 provides a summary of IHE allocations
aggregated at the state level across the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA.
Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education
FIPSE authorizes the Secretary to make awards to public and private nonprofit IHEs to promote
innovation and improvement in postsecondary education. The CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA
direct the Secretary to allocate FIPSE funds to IHEs that the Secretary determines to “have the
greatest unmet needs related to coronavirus.”
Under the CARES Act, 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 allocated sufficient funds
for each eligible IHE to receive at least $500,000 through their combined allocations under the
HEERF direct grants, MSI programs, and FIPSE under the CARES Act. Of the $348.8 million
available for awards under FIPSE I, $320.6 million was allocated to raise all public and private
nonprofit IHEs up to the $500,000 level.106 These grants are referred to as the CARES Act FIPSE
Formula Grants.
The CARES Act does not establish additional eligibility criteria for the disbursal of FIPSE funds.
To award the remaining (originally estimated at approximately $28.2 million) CARES Act FIPSE
funds, ED invited applications under the competitive Institutional Resilience and Expanded
Postsecondary Opportunity (IREPO) Grants program.107 To be eligible, public and private
nonprofit IHEs or consortia of such IHEs must demonstrate the greatest unmet need by having
greater than 30% Pell Grant recipient enrollment among full-time students prior to March 13,
2020, and/or by being underserved by other CARES Act programs. An IHE may have been
underserved by other CARES Act programs because it did not receive a loan under the Paycheck
Protection Program, and/or it serves large numbers of part-time students relative to IHEs of
similar total enrollment, and it had other unmet needs due to the COVID-19 emergency.
Applicants were required to propose projects to enable them to resume operations, serve the

106 U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund- FIPSE, Methodology for Calculating
Allocations, available at https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/heerffipse.html.
107 Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, “Applications for New Awards; Institutional
Resilience and Expanded Postsecondary Opportunity Grants Program,” 85 Federal Register 51685-51692, August 21,
2020. Applications were due October 20, 2020.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

44
needs of students, reduce disease transmission, and/or implement safe and effective instructional
delivery models. Despite the original estimate of $28.2 million, ED awarded $112.5 million in
CARES Act IREPO grants in July 2021.108
The CRRSAA and ARPA establish that FIPSE funds be granted to IHEs that the Secretary
determines have, after allocating other HEERF II and HEERF III funds, respectively, the
“greatest unmet needs related to coronavirus,” including IHEs with large populations of graduate
students and IHEs that did not otherwise receive an allocation under HEERF II.
To award the FIPSE funds under the CRRSAA, the Secretary issued an invitation for applications
for Supplemental Assistance to Institutions of Higher Education (SAIHE).109 To be eligible, an
IHE had to meet one of the seven absolute priorities established by ED. The Secretary indicated
that funds would be allocated to each priority depending on the number of applicants and award
amounts will be determined by a formula specific to each priority. The CRRSAA SAIHE
institutional eligibility requirements and formula allocation methodology is outlined in Table 10.
In July 2021, ED announced the award of more than $113 million to 110 IHEs under the
CRRSAA SAIHE program.110
Table 10. CRRSAA SAIHE Eligibility and Formula Allocation Methodology
Absolute
Priority
Public or Private Nonprofit IHE
Eligibility Requirements
Formula Allocation Methodology
1
Designated as eligible for at least one of the MSI
programs authorized under HEA Titles III and V
after ED made the initial CRRSAA MSI
allocations.
Based on the methodology used for CRRSAA
MSI program allocations.
2
Eligible for but did not receive a CRRSAA direct
grant because it did not report academic year
2018-2019 enrollment data to ED’s Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS).
Based on the methodology used for CRRSAA
direct grants, but institutional data from the
application.
3
Eligible for but did not receive a CARES Act
direct grant because it tried but failed to
successfully apply by the deadline.
Based on the amount an applicant would have
received under the CARES Act direct grant
program.
4
HEA Title III or Title V-eligible branch campus
that was not funded directly or indirectly
through the CRRSAA MSI programs because ED
did not have the requisite data to calculate an
allocation.a
Based on the methodology used for CRRSAA
MSI program allocations.

108 The difference between the original estimate and actual awards might reflect FIPSE formula funds that were not
accepted by institutions. U.S. Department of Education, “All successful applicants awarded the IREPO Grant,”
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/caresirepoallocationtable.pdf.
109 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, “Applications for New Awards; Fund for the
Improvement of Postsecondary Education-Supplemental Assistance to Institutions of Higher Education (SAIHE),” 86
Federal Register 16338-16342, March 29, 2021.
110 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, “U.S. Department of Education Announces $3.2
Billion in Additional Higher Education Emergency Relief Funds to Support Students at Historic and Under-Resourced
Institutions, press release, July 29, 2021, https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-announces-
32-billion-additional-higher-education-emergency-relief-funds-support-students-historic-and-under-resourced-
institutions.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

45
Absolute
Priority
Public or Private Nonprofit IHE
Eligibility Requirements
Formula Allocation Methodology
5
Merged or had a recent change to its HEA Title
IV Program Participation Agreement (PPA)
effective date resulting in the institution being
underfunded under the CRRSAA direct grant
program.b
Based on the methodology used for CRRSAA
direct grants, but institutional data from the
application, while taking into account any funds
already received under a CRRSAA direct grant.
6
Community college or IHE located in a rural
setting. In addition, the IHE must have a fall
2019 undergraduate enrollment of at least 50%
Pell Grant recipients and an enrollment decline
of at least 4.5%.
An amount per Pell Grant recipient, as
established by ED based on all the applications
received under this priority.
7
Student population of at least 90% graduate
students.
Based on the number of graduate students
enrolled at the institution and reported on the
application.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, “Applications for New Awards; Fund
for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education-Supplemental Assistance to Institutions of Higher Education
(SAIHE),” 86 Federal Register 16338-16342, March 29, 2021; and U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Postsecondary Education, “Applications for New Awards; Supplemental Assistance to Institutions of Higher
Education (SAIHE); Correction,” 86 Federal Register 18044-18045, April 7, 2021.
a.
The relevant HEA Title III and Title V-eligible institutions are as listed in ED’s FY2021 Eligibility Matrix
available at https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/idues/2021eligibilitymatrix.xlsx.
b.
Each IHE that wants to participate in the HEA Title IV student aid programs is required to have a current
PPA with ED. The PPA lists the date on which the PPA expires and the date on which the IHE must reapply
for participation.
To award the FIPSE funds under the ARPA, the Secretary announced the availability of funds for
the Supplemental Support under American Rescue Plan (SSARP).111 Much like SAIHE, the
proposal establishes categories of IHEs that may not have received funding or full funding from
the other HEERF III programs. To be eligible, an IHE had to meet one of the five absolute
priorities established by ED. The Secretary indicated that funds would be allocated to each
priority depending on the number of applicants and that award amounts will be determined by a
formula specific to each priority. The ARPA SSARP institutional eligibility requirements and
formula allocation methodology is outlined in Table 11. In July 2022, ED announced the award
of almost $198 million to 244 IHEs under the ARPA SSARP program.112
Table 11. ARPA SSARP Eligibility and Formula Allocation Methodology
Absolute
Priority
Public or Private Nonprofit IHE
Eligibility Requirements
Formula Allocation Methodology
1
Eligible for but did not receive an ARPA direct
grant due to technical errors, application issues,
or not reporting data to ED’s Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS).
Based on the initial estimated allocation or, in
its absence, the methodology used for ARPA
direct grant program allocations.

111 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, “Applications for New Awards; Supplemental
Support Under the American Rescue Plan,” 87 Federal Register 6154-6160, February 3, 2022.
112 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, “U.S. Department of Education Awards Final
$198 Million of American Rescue Plan Higher Education Funds to Support Students at Community Colleges, Rural,
and Minority-Serving Institutions,” press release, July 13, 2022, https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-
department-education-awards-final-198-million-american-rescue-plan-higher-education-funds-support-students-
community-colleges-rural-and-minority-serving-institutions.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

46
Absolute
Priority
Public or Private Nonprofit IHE
Eligibility Requirements
Formula Allocation Methodology
2
(1) Newly eligible for an ARPA MSI allocation;
(2) HEA Title III- or Title V-eligible branch
campus that was not funded directly or
indirectly through the ARPA MSI programs
because ED did not have the requisite data to
calculate an allocation;a (3) eligible for but did
not receive a CRRSAA MSI grant because it
tried but failed to successfully apply by the
deadline.
Based on the methodology used for ARPA MSI
program allocations or, as applicable, the initial
estimated CRRSAA MSI allocation.
3
Merged or had a recent change to its HEA Title
IV Program Participation Agreement (PPA),
effective date resulting in the institution being
underfunded under the ARPA direct grant
program.b
Based on the methodology used for ARPA
direct grants, but updated institutional data.
4
Community college or IHE located in a rural
setting. In addition, the IHE must have a fall
2019 undergraduate enrollment of at least 50%
Pell Grant recipients and an enrollment decline
of at least 4.5%.
An amount per Pell Grant recipient, as
established by ED based on all the applications
received under this priority.
Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, “Applications for New Awards;
Supplemental Support Under the American Rescue Plan,” 87 Federal Register 6154-6160, February 3, 2022.
a.
The relevant HEA Title III- and Title V-eligible institutions are as listed in ED’s FY2021 Eligibility Matrix
available at https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/idues/2021eligibilitymatrix.xlsx.
b.
Each IHE that wants to participate in the HEA Title IV student aid programs is required to have a current
PPA with ED. The PPA lists the date on which the PPA expires and the date on which the IHE must reapply
for participation.
Appendix F presents the estimated IHE allocations aggregated at the institutional sector level
(e.g., public two-year) and state level for the CARES Act FIPSE Formula Grants. Actual amounts
awarded to IHEs may differ as IHEs must apply and/or agree to accept the terms and conditions
of the awards, and IHEs may decline a portion of the allocation. Actual aggregations under the
CARES Act IREPO program, CRRSAA SAIHE program, and ARPA SSARP program are also
presented. Specifically, Table F-1 displays IHE allocations aggregated at the institutional sector
level; Table F-2, Table F-3, and Table F-4 show the IHE allocations aggregated at the state level
for each act; and Table F-5 provides a summary of IHE allocations aggregated at the state level
across the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA.
Excise Tax Provision
Under the CRRSAA, private IHEs that are subject to a 1.4% excise tax113 on net investment
income for tax year 2019 are to have their total HEERF allocation reduced by 50%, unless
waived by the Secretary. Private nonprofit IHEs that are eligible work colleges are exempt from
this provision.114 The Secretary may waive the allocation reduction if, upon application, an IHE
demonstrates need (including additional need for financial aid grants to students, payroll
expenses, or other expenditures) for the total amount of CRRSAA direct grant funds. The

113 Section 4968 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
114 Work colleges are defined in Section 448 of the HEA as public and private nonprofit, four-year, degree-granting
institutions with a commitment to community service that have operated a comprehensive work-learning service
program for at least two years, require students to participate in a comprehensive work-learning-service program, and
provide students with the opportunity to contribute to their education and the welfare of the community as a whole.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

47
Secretary must make publicly available a written justification for the denial of any waiver
application. The excise tax provisions under CRRSAA do not apply under the CARES Act or
ARPA. The aggregations of estimated allocations in Appendix A and Appendix F do not reflect
allocation reductions resulting from the excise tax provision as ED has not incorporated the
provision in its published estimated allocations.
According to the Internal Revenue Service, this tax is estimated to affect 40 or fewer private
institutions.115 The Secretary requires that all IHEs subject to the excise tax (1) notify ED within
30 days of determining the tax applies and (2) not draw down more than 50% of their total
allocation under CRRSAA HEERF prior to any request or approval for a waiver.116
Application, Distribution, and Reallocation Process
There are differences in the statutory requirements for IHEs to apply for the HEERF and for ED
to initially distribute funds or reallocate remaining funds across the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and
ARPA. This section highlights the differences and describes ED’s implementation of the
differences.
The CARES Act does not establish any IHE application requirements. ED initially required
interested IHEs that received an allocation under the direct grants or MSI programs to submit
Certification and Agreement forms that indicated the IHE’s agreement to comply with various
terms, conditions, and requirements in order to receive their allocated funds.
The CRRSAA establishes that IHEs with an approved HEERF application prior to December 27,
2020, would not be required to submit a new or revised application to receive HEERF II funds.
As a consequence, the supplemental HEERF II funds were made available to the HEERF I
grantees.117 ED required all proprietary IHEs to submit a new application for HEERF II direct
grant funds because CRRSAA created a separate direct grant program for proprietary IHEs.118 All
applicants to HEERF II FIPSE and new applicants to the other HEERF II programs were also
required to submit an application.119
Like the CARES Act, the ARPA does not establish any IHE application requirements. ED did not
require IHEs to apply for HEERF III programs if they previously received HEERF II funding
from the same program.
The CARES Act and ARPA do not establish a timeline for the distribution of HEERF funds. The
CRRSAA establishes a timeline for the Secretary to distribute HEERF monies. The Secretary
must allocate direct grant amounts within 30 calendar days of the date of enactment and MSI
program amounts within 60 calendar days of the date of enactment. In addition, with respect to

115 For more information, see https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-issues-guidance-on-the-tax-on-the-net-investment-
income-of-certain-private-colleges-and-universities.
116 U.S. Department of Education, Required Notification of Endowment Excise Tax Paid, https://www2.ed.gov/about/
offices/list/ope/crrsaa.html, dated January 14, 2021.
117 ED treats the portion of the award required to be used for student aid and the portion of the award that may be used
for other purposes as separate awards. Letter from Christopher J. McCaghren, Ed.D., Acting Assistant Secretary for
Postsecondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, to Public and Private Nonprofit College and University
Presidents, January 14, 2021, https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/asstsecretaryheerfiia1letter.pdf.
118 U.S. Department of Education, CRRSAA: Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF II), CRRSAA
HEERF II Section 314(a)(4) Frequently Asked Questions (published January 14, 2021, and updated: March 19, 2021),
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/crrsaa.html.
119 U.S. Department of Education, “CRRSAA: Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF II),”
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/crrsaa.html.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

48
FIPSE the Secretary must brief the appropriations committees no later than seven days before
publishing the application within 60 calendar days of enactment and allocate amounts within 120
calendar days of enactment.
The CARES Act and CRRSAA require that HEERF direct grant funds be distributed to each IHE
using the same systems used to distribute HEA Title IV aid to IHEs. The CARES Act and
CRRSAA do not specify how ED must distribute MSI and FIPSE program funds to IHEs. The
ARPA does not establish a method of distribution for any of the program funds.
The CARES Act and ARPA do not provide for the reallocation of HEERF funds. The CRRSAA
included two provisions for the reallocation of funds. One provision required that ED reallocate
any CARES Act direct grant funds that were unobligated as of December 27, 2020, and include
them in the available funds for the CRRSAA direct grants for public and private nonprofit
IHEs.120
Under the second HEERF II reallocation provision, any funds that are allocated under the direct
grant and MSI programs but for which an IHE does not apply within 90 days of the notice
inviting applications are to be reallocated. The Secretary is required to reallocate such funds to
IHEs that have submitted direct grant applications based on the formula used to provide direct
grants to public and private nonprofit IHEs. HEERF II FIPSE funds are not required to be
reallocated.
In like manner, ED announced that HEERF III direct grant funds that were declined, not
accepted, not awarded, or returned within 90 days, by August 11, 2021, would be distributed to
grantees that have not declined or returned funds.121
Uses of Funds
The CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA establish how IHEs may use their HEERF funds. Table
12 provides the authorized activities under each of the acts. IHEs receiving direct grant funds
must use a specified portion of funds for student aid. Most but not all grantees may use a portion
of funds to defray eligible institutional expenses, which may include lost revenue,122 technology
costs associated with a transition to distance education, and payroll. The Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103) expanded the allowable uses of funds received from the
MSI programs. Other eligible uses of funds are also shown in Table 12. The Secretary has issued
several guidance documents to help clarify the uses of funds. In addition, ED has interpreted that

120 The reallocation also included funds that had not been obligated from the CARES Act “Safe Schools and
Citizenship Education” account.
121 ED extended the application deadline for proprietary institutions to September 10, 2021. U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, “Notice Inviting Applications for Public and Private Nonprofit
Institutions of Higher Education Under the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF), Section 2003 of the
American Rescue Plan Act, 2021 (ARP),” 86 Federal Register 26215-26220, May 13, 2021; U.S. Department of
Education, HEERF III: Institutional Portion for Public and Nonprofit Institutions (a)(1), ARP HEERF III Section 2003
Frequently Asked Questions (issued May 11, 2021), https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/
heerfiiiinstitutional.html; and U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, “Reopening; Notice
Inviting Applications for the Proprietary Institution Grant Funds for Students Program Under the Higher Education
Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF); American Rescue Plan Act, 2021 (ARP),” 86 Federal Register 45975-45976,
August 17, 2021.
122 In responses to questions, ED has provided specific guidance on costs that may be considered lost revenue and
required documentation at U.S. Department of Education, CRRSAA: Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund
(HEERF II), HEERF Lost Revenue FAQs (March 19, 2021), https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/
heerflostrevenuefaqs.pdf.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

49
HEERF expenses must have been first incurred on or after March 13, 2020, the date of the
proclamation of national emergency.123
Table 12. Allowable Uses of HEERF by IHEs Under the CARES Act, CRRSAA,
and ARPA
Program
Student Aid
Institutional Uses
Other Uses
CARES Act
Direct Grantsa
No less than 50% of such funds
to provide emergency financial
aid grants to students for
expenses related to the
disruption of campus operations
due to COVID-19 (including
eligible expenses under a
student’s cost of attendance,
such as food, housing, course
materials, technology, health
care, and child care).
An IHE that repurposes funds on
or after December 27, 2020 (see
the “Other Uses” column), shall
ensure that not less than 50% of
the funds are used for financial
aid grants to students under
either the CARES Act direct
grants provisions or the
CRRSAA direct grants
provisions, or a combination of
those provisions.b
NA
Any costs associated with
significant changes to the delivery
of instruction due to COVID-19.
Funds remaining on or after
December 27, 2020, may, subject
to the student aid requirement
(see the “Student Aid” column),
be used to
(1) defray expenses associated
with COVID-19 (including lost
revenue, reimbursement for
expenses already incurred,
technology costs associated with
a transition to distance
education, faculty and staff
trainings, and payroll);
(2) carry out student support
activities authorized by the HEA
that address needs related to
COVID-19; or
(3) provide financial aid grants to
students (including students
exclusively enrolled in distance
education), which may be used
for any component of the
student’s cost of attendance or
for emergency costs that arise
due to COVID-19, such as
tuition, food, housing, health care
(including mental health care), or
child care. In making financial aid
grants to students, an IHE shall
prioritize grants to students with
exceptional need, such as those
who receive Pell Grants.b

123 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, “Notice of Interpretation Regarding Period of
Allowable Expenses for Funds Administered Under the Higher Education Emergency Relief (HEERF) Program,” 85
Federal Register 15208-15209, March 22, 2021. Under 2 C.F.R. Sections 200.458 and 200.308(d)(1), a grantee may
incur project costs no more than 90 calendar days before the date of the grant award.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

50
Program
Student Aid
Institutional Uses
Other Uses
MSI Programs
Grants to students for any
component of the student’s cost
of attendance (as defined under
Section 472 of the HEA),
including food, housing, course
materials, technology, health
care, and child care.
Funds remaining on or after
December 27, 2020, may be
used for financial aid grants to
students as authorized by
CRRSAA.
Defraying expenses (including
lost revenue, reimbursement for
expenses already incurred,
technology costs associated with
a transition to distance
education, faculty and staff
trainings, and payroll) incurred
by IHEs.
Acquisition of real property or
construction directly related to
preventing, preparing for, and
responding to coronavirus.c
Funds remaining on or after
December 27, 2020, may, subject
to the CRRSAA student aid
requirements, be used to
(1) defray expenses associated
with COVID-19 (including lost
revenue, reimbursement for
expenses already incurred,
technology costs associated with
a transition to distance
education, faculty and staff
trainings, and payroll);
(2) carry out student support
activities authorized by the HEA
that address needs related to
COVID-19; or
(3) provide financial aid grants to
students (including students
exclusively enrolled in distance
education), which may be used
for any component of the
student’s cost of attendance or
for emergency costs that arise
due to COVID-19, such as
tuition, food, housing, health care
(including mental health care), or
child care. In making financial aid
grants to students, an IHE shall
prioritize grants to students with
exceptional need, such as those
who receive Pell Grants.b
FIPSE
Grants to students for any
component of the student’s cost
of attendance (as defined under
Section 472 of the HEA),
including food, housing, course
materials, technology, health
care, and child care.
Defraying expenses (including
lost revenue, reimbursement for
expenses already incurred,
technology costs associated with
a transition to distance
education, faculty and staff
trainings, and payroll) incurred
by IHEs.
NA

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

51
Program
Student Aid
Institutional Uses
Other Uses
CRRSAAd
Direct Grants
Financial aid grants to students
(including students exclusively
enrolled in distance education),
for any component of the
student’s cost of attendance or
for emergency costs that arise
due to COVID-19, such as
tuition, food, housing, health care
(including mental health care), or
child care. In making financial aid
grants, an institution shall
prioritize grants to students with
exceptional need, such as those
who receive Pell Grants.
IHEs shall provide at least the
same amount of funding in
emergency financial aid grants to
students as was required to be
provided under the CARES Act
direct grants program.e
An IHE receiving funds in
accordance with students
exclusively enrolled in distance
education courses prior to the
qualifying emergency may only
use funds so apportioned for
financial aid grants to students.
Private IHEs subject to the
excise tax provision may only
use funds for financial aid grants
or for sanitation, personal
protective equipment, or other
expenses associated with the
general health and safety of the
campus environment related to
the qualifying emergency.
Defraying expenses associated
with COVID-19 (including lost
revenue, reimbursement for
expenses already incurred,
technology costs associated with
a transition to distance
education, faculty and staff
trainings, and payroll).
Private for-profit IHEs may not
use funds for institutional uses.
Carrying out student support
activities authorized by the HEA
that address needs related to
COVID-19.
Private for-profit IHEs may not
use funds for other uses.
Private IHEs subject to the
excise tax provision may only
use funds for financial aid grants
or for sanitation, personal
protective equipment, or other
expenses associated with the
general health and safety of the
campus environment related to
the qualifying emergency.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

52
Program
Student Aid
Institutional Uses
Other Uses
MSI Programs
Financial aid grants to students
(including students exclusively
enrolled in distance education),
for any component of the
student’s cost of attendance or
for emergency costs that arise
due to COVID-19, such as
tuition, food, housing, health care
(including mental health care), or
child care. In making financial aid
grants, an institution shall
prioritize grants to students with
exceptional need, such as those
who receive Pell Grants.
Private IHEs subject to the
excise tax provision may only
use funds for financial aid grants
or for sanitation, personal
protective equipment, or other
expenses associated with the
general health and safety of the
campus environment related to
the qualifying emergency.
Defraying expenses associated
with COVID-19 (including lost
revenue, reimbursement for
expenses already incurred,
technology costs associated with
a transition to distance
education, faculty and staff
trainings, and payroll).
Acquisition of real property or
construction directly related to
preventing, preparing for, and
responding to coronavirus.c
Carrying out student support
activities authorized by the HEA
that address needs related to
COVID-19.
Private IHEs subject to the
excise tax provision may only
use funds for financial aid grants
or for sanitation, personal
protective equipment, or other
expenses associated with the
general health and safety of the
campus environment related to
the qualifying emergency.
FIPSEf
Financial aid grants to students
(including students exclusively
enrolled in distance education),
for any component of the
student’s cost of attendance or
for emergency costs that arise
due to COVID-19, such as
tuition, food, housing, health care
(including mental health care), or
child care. In making financial aid
grants, an institution shall
prioritize grants to students with
exceptional need, such as those
who receive Pell Grants.
Defraying expenses associated
with COVID-19 (including lost
revenue, reimbursement for
expenses already incurred,
technology costs associated with
a transition to distance
education, faculty and staff
trainings, and payroll).
Carrying out student support
activities authorized by the HEA
that address needs related to
COVID-19.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

53
Program
Student Aid
Institutional Uses
Other Uses
ARPAd
Direct Grants
Financial aid grants to students
(including students exclusively
enrolled in distance education),
for any component of the
student’s cost of attendance or
for emergency costs that arise
due to COVID-19, such as
tuition, food, housing, health care
(including mental health care), or
child care. In making financial aid
grants, an institution shall
prioritize grants to students with
exceptional need, such as those
who receive Pell Grants.
An IHE receiving funds in
accordance with the enrollment
of students exclusively enrolled
in distance education courses
prior to the qualifying emergency
may only use funds so
apportioned for financial aid
grants to students.
An institution that receives an
allocation in accordance with the
enrollment of students who
were not exclusively enrolled in
distance education courses prior
to the qualifying emergency shall
use not less than 50% of such
allocation to provide emergency
financial aid grants to students.
A private for-profit (proprietary)
IHE may only use funds for
financial aid grants.
Defraying expenses associated
with COVID-19 (including lost
revenue, reimbursement for
expenses already incurred,
technology costs associated with
a transition to distance
education, faculty and staff
trainings, and payroll).
An institution shall use a portion
of funds received under this
section and not required for
student aid to
(1) implement evidence-based
practices to monitor and
suppress COVID-19 in
accordance with public health
guidelines; and
(2) conduct direct outreach to
financial aid applicants about the
opportunity to receive a financial
aid adjustment due to the recent
unemployment of a family
member or independent student,
or other circumstances
described in Section 479A of the
HEA.
MSI Programs
Financial aid grants to students
(including students exclusively
enrolled in distance education),
for any component of the
student’s cost of attendance or
for emergency costs that arise
due to COVID-19, such as
tuition, food, housing, health care
(including mental health care), or
child care. In making financial aid
grants, an institution shall
prioritize grants to students with
exceptional need, such as those
who receive Pell Grants.
Defraying expenses associated
with COVID-19 (including lost
revenue, reimbursement for
expenses already incurred,
technology costs associated with
a transition to distance
education, faculty and staff
trainings, and payroll).
Acquisition of real property or
construction directly related to
preventing, preparing for, and
responding to coronavirus.c
An institution shall use a portion
of funds received under this
section and not required for
student aid to
(1) implement evidence-based
practices to monitor and
suppress COVID-19 in
accordance with public health
guidelines; and
(2) conduct direct outreach to
financial aid applicants about the
opportunity to receive a financial
aid adjustment due to the recent
unemployment of a family
member or independent student,
or other circumstances
described in Section 479A of the
HEA.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

54
Program
Student Aid
Institutional Uses
Other Uses
FIPSEg
Financial aid grants to students
(including students exclusively
enrolled in distance education),
for any component of the
student’s cost of attendance or
for emergency costs that arise
due to COVID-19, such as
tuition, food, housing, health care
(including mental health care), or
child care. In making financial aid
grants, an institution shall
prioritize grants to students with
exceptional need, such as those
who receive Pell Grants.
Defraying expenses associated
with COVID-19 (including lost
revenue, reimbursement for
expenses already incurred,
technology costs associated with
a transition to distance
education, faculty and staff
trainings, and payroll).
An institution shall use a portion
of funds received under this
section and not required for
student aid to
(1) implement evidence-based
practices to monitor and
suppress COVID-19 in
accordance with public health
guidelines; and
(2) conduct direct outreach to
financial aid applicants about the
opportunity to receive a financial
aid adjustment due to the recent
unemployment of a family
member or independent student,
or other circumstances
described in Section 479A of the
HEA.
Sources: Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of provisions in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act (CARES Act; P.L. 116-136); the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2021 (CRRSAA) included as Division M in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021
(CAA; P.L. 116-260), the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA; P.L. 117-2); and the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103).
Notes: NA = not applicable.
a.
The CARES Act specifically excludes costs that include payment to contractors for the provision of pre-
enrollment recruitment activities, endowments, or capital outlays associated with facilities related to
athletics, sectarian instruction, or religious worship.
b.
Such funds are designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to Section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of
the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.
c.
Section 530, Division H of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103) expanded the
allowable uses of funds received from HEERF MSI programs. Funds from other HEERF programs may not be
used to engage in construction or purchase real property, but may be used for minor remodeling (34 C.F.R
§77.1).
d.
No funds received under the CRRSAA or ARPA can be used to fund contractors for the provision of pre-
enrollment recruitment activities; marketing or recruitment; endowments; capital outlays associated with
facilities related to athletics, sectarian instruction, or religious worship; senior administrator or executive
salaries, benefits, bonuses, contracts, and incentives; stock buybacks, shareholder dividends, capital
distributions, and stock options; or any other cash or other benefit for a senior administrator or executive.
e.
ED indicates that this amount is the larger of either the amount the IHE was required to provide to
students under the CARES Act, or the amount the IHE is receiving based on its share of students who were
enrolled exclusively in distance education prior to the qualifying emergency. Letter from Christopher J.
McCaghren, Ed.D., Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education, U.S. Department of Education,
to Public and Private Nonprofit College and University Presidents, January 14, 2021, https://www2.ed.gov/
about/offices/list/ope/asstsecretaryheerfiia1letter.pdf.
f.
The uses of funds in the table are as established by HEERF II. ED has established more specific requirements
for grants awarded under some of the absolute priorities. U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Postsecondary Education, “Applications for New Awards; Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary
Education-Supplemental Assistance to Institutions of Higher Education (SAIHE),” 86 Federal Register 16338-
16342, March 29, 2021.
g.
The uses of funds in the table are as established by HEERF III. ED has established more specific
requirements. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, “Applications for New
Awards; Supplemental Support Under the American Rescue Plan,” 87 Federal Register 6154-6160, February
3, 2022

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

55
Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund Student Aid
As discussed earlier and as evidenced in Table 12, IHEs receiving direct grants must use a
portion of the funds for emergency financial aid grants to students, as established under the
HEERF I direct grants program, or financial aid grants to students, as established by the HEERF
II. IHEs receiving MSI or FIPSE program funds may use a portion of the funds for grants to
students or financial aid grants to students. Emergency financial aid grants to students are only
for student expenses related to the disruption of campus operations due to COVID-19.124 ED has
indicated that 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 allow
a student to receive total aid in excess of his/her cost of attendance.125 Financial aid grants to
students are available for any component of the student’s cost of attendance or for emergency
costs that arise due to COVID-19. Grants to students are for any component of the student’s cost
of attendance.126
The CARES Act does not explicitly establish eligibility criteria for students to receive student aid
under the HEERF from their IHE. ED issued guidance and an interim final rule for the CARES
Act that limited eligibility to students who were or could be eligible for HEA Title IV aid and
prohibited eligibility for students who were enrolled exclusively in online programs prior to
March 13, 2020.127 Under HEA Title IV, 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 (e.g., undocumented immigrants are ineligible), and must
not be enrolled in elementary or secondary school. Aside from these limitations, ED provided
IHEs discretion to determine individual grant amounts and additional student eligibility
requirements.128 The actions by the Secretary to limit student eligibility generated some dissent.129
Several Members of Congress wrote to the Secretary opposing ED’s imposition of eligibility
requirements as contradicting congressional intent and harming students.130 Several courts

124 U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund- Student Aid, CARES HEERF
Certification and Agreement - Student Portion, https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/heerfstudent.html.
125 Generally, the HEA prohibits a student from receiving HEA Title IV aid and other financial assistance in excess of
his/her cost of attendance. U.S. Department of Education, CARES Act: Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund,
CARES Act HEERF Rollup FAQs (rollup of all five previously released HEERF FAQ documents in one document;
issued October 14, 2020, and revised January 28, 2021), https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/caresact.html.
126 Cost of attendance is defined in HEA Section 472. It includes 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.
127 U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund- Institutional Portion, Cares Act HEERF
Institutional Portion of the HEERF under Section 18004(a)(1) and 18004(c) FAQs (issued April 9, 2020, and revised
January 28, 2021), https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/heerfinstitutional.html; and U.S. 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.
128 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.
129 U.S. 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 U.S. 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).
130 Letter from Michael F. Bennet, United States Senator, Robert Menendez, United States Senator, and Richard J.
Durbin, United States Senator et al. to The 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 The Honorable Betsy DeVos, Secretary, United States Department of Education, April 27, 2020.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

56
preliminarily enjoined ED from applying some or all eligibility requirements to HEERF financial
aid grants at specified IHEs, and that litigation is ongoing.131
The HEERF II and HEERF III establish that financial aid grants to students are available to
students exclusively enrolled in distance education and are required to be awarded in a manner
that prioritizes “students with exceptional need.”132 ED did not establish any restrictions on
student eligibility for aid under the HEERF II and HEERF III, allowing financial aid grants “to
non-degree seeking, non-credit, dual enrollment, and continuing education students … [and]
students who are qualified aliens, as defined within 8 U.S.C. section 1641 (including refugees and
persons granted asylum).”133
ED issued final regulations effective on May 14, 2021, and applicable to each of the HEERF
programs funded under the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA clarifying eligibility for any
individual who is or was enrolled at an eligible institution on or after March 13, 2020, the date the
national emergency was declared for COVID-19.134 The final rule supersedes the interim final
rule. For example, the final regulations provide eligibility to students who are in dual-enrollment
or noncredit programs and undocumented students. IHEs may determine which individuals
currently or previously enrolled at an institution are eligible to receive student aid given that the
CRRSAA and ARPA require IHEs to prioritize awarding grants to students with “exceptional
need,” such as those who receive Pell Grants.
In addition, the Internal Revenue Service has provided guidance on the federal income tax
treatment of HEERF student aid funds received by students. Emergency financial aid grants under
the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA are not included in the student’s gross income used to
determine federal income tax liability even if the school uses the funds to cancel or discharge a
student’s overdue balance for tuition and fees. With some limitations, such emergency financial
aid grants may be used to claim the American Opportunity Credit, a tuition and fees deduction, or
the Lifetime Learning Credit.135
ED has clarified that HEERF student aid under the CARES Act, CRRSAA, or ARPA is not
counted as income when calculating a family’s expected family contribution (EFC).136 As such,
the aid will not reduce a student’s eligibility for HEA Title IV aid in future years.
Other Provisions
The CARES Act and CRRSAA specifically allow MSI program recipients to use prior awards
provided under HEA Titles III, V, and VII to prevent, prepare for, and respond to COVID-19. The
ARPA does not include the same allowance.

131 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, Order at 15, ECF No. 16.
132 The HEERF II does not define students with exceptional need.
133 U.S. Department of Education, HEERF II: Minority Serving Institutions (a)(2), (a)(2), Frequently Asked Questions,
(published January 14, 2021, updated March 19, 2021), https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/heerfiimsi.html.
134 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, “Eligibility To Receive Emergency Financial
Aid Grants to Students Under the Higher Education Emergency Relief Programs,” 86 Federal Register 26608-26631,
May 14, 2021.
135 Internal Revenue Service, IRS revises frequently asked questions for the Higher Education Emergency Grants, FS-
2022-11, February 2022.
136 U.S. Department of Education, HEERF III: Institutional Portion for Public and Nonprofit Institutions (a)(1), ARP
HEERF III Section 2003 Frequently Asked Questions (issued May 11, 2021), https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/
ope/heerfiiiinstitutional.html.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

57
Funds paid through the HEERF I will not be included as revenue for the purposes of ensuring that
a proprietary IHE has derived at least 10% of its revenue from non-HEA Title IV funds (i.e., no
more than 90% of its revenue can come from HEA Title IV funds).137 If an IHE violates the
requirement (the 90/10 rule) for two consecutive years, it loses its eligibility to administer HEA
Title IV student financial aid for at least two years.138
Maintenance of Effort and Maintenance of Equity
The CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA include different maintenance of effort (MOE)
requirements.139 All three acts include MOE requirements that apply to elementary and secondary
education and to higher education. The ARPA also includes maintenance of equity (MOEq)
requirements that apply at the state and LEA levels with respect to elementary and secondary
education.
CARES Act
The CARES Act ESF included two MOE requirements—one that applied to state support for
elementary and secondary education and one that applied to state support for higher education. If
a state applied for a grant under the GEER Fund or the ESSER Fund, the grant application was
required to include assurances that the state would meet both MOE requirements.
For elementary and secondary education, the state had to provide an assurance that it would
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 enactment date of
the CARES Act.140
Similarly, for higher education the state or outlying area had to provide an assurance that it would
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 enactment date of the CARES Act.
For the purposes of determining state support for higher education, states had to include state
funding to IHEs and state need-based financial aid. States did not have to include support for
capital projects, support for research and development, or tuition and fees paid by students.
The Secretary 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.

137 U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund- Institutional Portion, Cares Act HEERF
Institutional Portion of the HEERF under Section 18004(a)(1) and 18004(c) FAQs (issued April 9, 2020, and revised
January 28, 2021), https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/heerfinstitutional.html.
138 For more information on the 90/10 rule, see CRS Report R46773, The 90/10 Rule Under HEA Title IV: Background
and Issues.
139 For additional information, see U.S. Department of Education, Guidance on Maintenance of Effort Requirements
and Waiver Requests under the Elementary and Secondary School emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund and the
Governor’s Emergency Education Relief (GEER) Fund, April 2021, https://oese.ed.gov/files/2021/04/MOE-
Chart_with-waiver-FAQs_FINAL_4.21.21Update.pdf.
140 Typically, this will be FY2017, FY2018, and FY2019.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

58
CRRSAA
Similar to the CARES Act, the CRRSAA included two MOE requirements—one that applies to
state support for elementary and secondary education and one that applies to state support for
higher education. States were required to provide an assurance that they would meet both MOE
requirements.
For elementary and secondary education, a state was required to provide an assurance that it
would maintain support in FY2022 at least at the proportional levels of state support for
elementary and secondary education relative to the state’s overall spending, averaged over
FY2017, FY2018, and FY2019. For higher education, the state was required to provide an
assurance that it would maintain support in FY2022 at least at the proportional levels of state
support for higher education relative to the state’s overall spending, averaged over FY2017,
FY2018, and FY2019. For the purposes of determining state support for higher education, states
are required to 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.
Similar to the CARES Act, the Secretary 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.
ARPA
Unlike the CARES Act and CRRSAA, the ARPA includes both MOE and MOEq requirements.
Both are discussed below.
MOE
As a condition of receiving funds under the ESSER III, states had to agree to meet the same MOE
requirements as those included in the CRRSAA, except that effort must be maintained for both
FY2022 and FY2023.141 The ARPA also included a provision permitting the Secretary to waive
any MOE requirements associated with the ESF for the purpose of relieving fiscal burdens
experienced by states in “preventing, preparing for, and responding to the coronavirus.” This
waiver authority differs from that provided under the MOE waiver available under the CARES
Act and CRRSAA in two ways. First, it allows the Secretary to provide a waiver under certain
circumstances of any MOE requirements associated with the ESF, which could include funds
provided under the CARES Act and the CRRSAA. Second, rather than the Secretary only being
allowed to waive MOE requirements for states that have experienced a “precipitous decline in
financial resources,” the ARPA language permits the Secretary to provide MOE waivers to relieve
“fiscal burdens incurred by States in preventing, preparing for, and responding to the
coronavirus.”

141 For both FY2022 and FY2023, comparisons will be made to a state’s overall spending, averaged over FY2017 and
FY2018.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

59
MOEq
The ARPA included two maintenance of equity requirements. The first focuses on high-need
LEAs and the highest-poverty LEAs, and the second focuses on high-poverty schools. Each
requirement is discussed below. 142
MOEq Requirements for High-Need LEAs and Highest-Poverty LEAs
An SEA that receives ESSER III funds is prohibited in FY2022 and FY2023 from reducing state
funding calculated on a per-pupil basis for any high-need LEA in the state by an amount that
exceeds the overall per-pupil reduction in state funds (if any) across all LEAs in the state in such
fiscal year. That is, any per-pupil reduction in funding for a high-need LEA in FY2022 or FY2023
cannot be greater than the overall per-pupil reduction in state funds143 across all LEAs in the state
for that fiscal year. For the purposes of this requirement, the ARPA defines a high-need LEA as
one that is among the group of LEAs in the state that (1) in rank order have the highest
percentages of economically disadvantaged students, and (2) collectively serve not less than 50%
of the state’s total enrollment of students served by all LEAs in the state.
In addition, an SEA is prohibited in FY2022 and FY2023 from reducing state funding, as
calculated on a per-pupil basis, for any of the highest-poverty LEAs below the level of funding,
as calculated on a per-pupil basis, provided to each such LEA in FY2019. Thus, this provision
establishes a floor for state aid for the highest-poverty LEAs in each state. For the purposes of
this requirement, the ARPA defines a highest-poverty LEA as one that is among the group of
LEAs in the state that (1) in rank order have the highest percentages of economically
disadvantaged students in the state, and (2) collectively serve not less than 20% of the state’s total
enrollment of students served by all LEAs in the state.
For the definitions of high-need LEA and highest-poverty LEA, the determination of the highest
percentages of economically disadvantaged students in the state must be made based on the most
recent satisfactory data available from the Department of Commerce. This would include data
available from the U.S. Census Bureau’s SAIPE dataset, which provides data on the number of
children ages 5-17 living in families in poverty in an LEA. For LEAs for which data are not
available through the Department of Commerce (e.g., charter schools that are independent LEAs),
states must use other data that the Secretary determines are satisfactory.

142 For more information about MOEq requirements, see U.S. Department of Education, Frequently Asked Questions
American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund: Maintenance of Equity, October 1,
2021, https://oese.ed.gov/files/2021/10/Maintenance-of-Equity-updated_10_1_21-FAQs.Final_.pdf; and Letter from
Miguel A. Cardona, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education, to Chief State School Officers and School District
Superintendents, August 6, 2021, https://oese.ed.gov/files/2021/08/21-006207-MOEquity-DCL-F08-05-2021-
SIGNED.pdf.
143 The overall per-pupil reduction in state funds for a given fiscal year is defined as the amount of any reduction in the
total amount of state funds provided to all LEAs in the state in such fiscal year compared to the total amount of state
funds provided to all LEAs in the state in the previous fiscal year, divided by the aggregate number of children enrolled
in all schools served by all LEAs in the state in the fiscal year for which the determination is being made. ED has
provided guidance on how to implement this requirement; see U.S. Department of Education, Frequently Asked
Questions American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund: Maintenance of Equity,
October 1, 2021, https://oese.ed.gov/files/2021/10/Maintenance-of-Equity-updated_10_1_21-FAQs.Final_.pdf. For
example, for FY2022 an SEA would determine the overall level of per-pupil funding for FY2021 and FY2022 and
determine whether overall per-pupil funding decreased between the two fiscal years. The SEA would then calculate the
level of per-pupil funding for FY2021 and FY2022 for each high-need LEA. If there is a decrease in the level of per-
pupil funding for a high-need LEA, it cannot exceed the overall decrease in per-pupil funding (if any).

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

60
MOEq Requirements for High-Poverty Schools
There are two requirements that LEAs receiving funds under the ESSER III must meet with
respect to maintaining equity in FY2022 and FY2023. First, an LEA is prohibited in FY2022 and
FY2023 from reducing per-pupil funding based on combined state and local funding for any high-
poverty school served by the LEA by an amount that exceeds the total reduction in LEA funding
from combined state and local funding for all schools served by the LEA in such fiscal year (if
any), divided by the number of children enrolled in all schools served by the LEA in such fiscal
year. In addition, an LEA is prohibited in FY2022 and FY2023 from reducing per-pupil, full-time
equivalent (FTE) staff in any high-poverty school by an amount that exceeds the total reduction
in FTE staff in all schools served by the LEA for such fiscal year (if any), divided by the number
of children enrolled in all schools served by the LEA in such fiscal year.
These MOEq requirements do not apply to any LEA that meets at least one of the following
criteria in a given fiscal year:

it has a total enrollment of less than 1,000 students,

it operates only one school,

it serves all students within each grade span in a single school, or

it “demonstrates an exceptional or uncontrollable circumstance, such as
unpredictable changes in student enrollment or a precipitous decline in the
financial resources of such agency, as determined by the Secretary of Education.”
A high-poverty school is defined as one in the highest quartile of schools served by an LEA based
on the percentage of economically disadvantaged students served. In identifying economically
disadvantaged students, the state must select a measure of poverty established for the purposes of
the definition of a high-poverty school by the Secretary and apply such measure consistently to
all schools in the state.
Reporting Requirements
The CARES Act and CRRSAA include various reporting requirements for the ESF programs.
These include general reporting requirements that apply broadly to programs included in the acts
as well as reporting requirements specific to the ESF programs. ED has also established reporting
requirements for ESF recipients under the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA. To facilitate the
public release of data collected, ED has established a website dedicated to tracking, collecting,
and disseminating data related to the ESF.144 In addition, the Pandemic Response Accountability
Committee (PRAC) makes publicly available detailed pandemic relief spending data based on the
CARES Act and other related legislation, including the CRRSAA and ARPA.145 A summary of the
reporting requirements included in the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA is provided below.
General CARES Act Reporting Requirements
Section 15011, Division B of the CARES Act establishes several reporting requirements for
federal agencies and other entities receiving CARES Act funds. Within 90 days of enactment,
agencies had to describe to the PRAC how funds would be used. Federal agencies had to report to
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Bureau of Fiscal Service in the

144 See https://covid-relief-data.ed.gov/.
145 See https://www.pandemicoversight.gov/.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

61
Department of the Treasury, the PRAC, and the appropriate congressional committees any
obligation or expenditure of CARES Act funds over $150,000 on a monthly basis until September
30, 2021. The OMB Director, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the
Administrator of the Small Business Administration, and the Chairperson of the Council of
Economic Advisors, must provide quarterly reports to the appropriate congressional committees
and on a public website on the impact programs funded by more than $150,000 have on
employment, estimated economic growth, and other key economic indicators.
To facilitate agency reporting, recipients of CARES Act funds must submit a report to the PRAC
and applicable agency not later than 10 days after the end of each calendar quarter. The report
must include the total amount of funds received under the ESF and a detailed list of all 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. Additionally, the report 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 PRAC not later than 30 days after the end of each calendar quarter through
September 30, 2025.
Education Stabilization Fund Reporting Requirements
In addition to the general reporting requirements described above, the CARES Act requires that
IHEs receiving HEERF monies report the use of funds to the Secretary, at such time and in such
manner as the Secretary may require.
The CRRSAA establishes a requirement that ED report spending plans to Congress and a
requirement that ESSER Fund and HEERF recipients report uses of funds to ED. The CRRSAA
requires that ED provide spending plans to the appropriations committees beginning 30 days after
enactment and every 60 days thereafter until September 30, 2024. The spending plan provides
anticipated uses of funds, including estimated personnel and administrative costs and the amount
of each contract obligation over $5,000,000 that has not previously been reported.
The CRRSAA requires that states receiving ESSER funds and IHEs receiving HEERF monies
report a detailed accounting of the use of funds, not later than six months after receiving funding
and as required by ED thereafter. The state reports must include how a state uses funds to
measure and address learning loss among students disproportionately affected by COVID-19 and
school closures, including low-income students, children with disabilities, English learners, racial
and ethnic minorities, students experiencing homelessness, and children and youth in foster care.
The ARPA did not establish ESF reporting requirements.
Department of Education-Established Reporting Requirements
Through the grant application process, ED has established various reporting requirements for
governors, SEAs, and IHEs receiving ESF grants. In addition to some initial reports that outline
how entities plan to use the funds, ED has generally established quarterly and annual reporting
requirements that focus on expenditures; subgrant recipients, if applicable; and administration.
For example, within 45 days of receiving a GEER Fund grant each governor must provide to ED
an initial report that details how the state would award funds to LEAs, IHEs, and other education-
related entities; the criteria the state would use for determining those entities that are “most
significantly impacted by coronavirus” or “essential for carrying out emergency educational
services”; and a description of the process and deliberations involved in developing these

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

62
criteria.146 The quarterly HEERF reports focus on expenditures and the method and distribution of
student aid.147
Continued Payment to Employees
Under the CARES Act and CRRSAA, 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 disruption or closure related to the COVID-19 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 will continue to be paid during such
periods. This provision was not included in the ARPA.
Definitions
The ESF includes definitions that apply only to the ESF programs in the CARES Act, CRRSAA,
and ARPA. These include specific definitions of elementary education, secondary education, IHE,
Secretary, state, nonpublic 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 shall
have the meaning given to it by that section. The definitions section does not apply to the HEERF
III.
Of particular note is the definition of state that applies to the GEER Fund, EANS program, and
ESSER Fund. For these programs, 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 allocation of funds under these emergency education relief funds.
The HEERF does not use the term state. ED has interpreted the definition of IHE to include 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 Marshall
Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau.148

146 See previous discussion of CARES Act reporting requirements.
147 U.S. Department of Education, Reporting and Data Collection, https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/
heerfreporting.html.
148 The outlying areas may receive funds under the ESF set-aside for the outlying areas, and IHEs in the outlying areas
may receive funds under the HEERF.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

63
Appendix A. Grants to States, the Outlying
Areas, and IHEs Under ESF Programs

Table A-1. GEER Funds, ESSER Fund State Grants, and HEERF IHE Grants
Aggregated at the State Level for the CARES Act ESF
(Dollars in thousands)
A
B
C
D
E
F
State/Entity
GEER I:
Actual
Grant
Amounta
ESSER I:
Actual
Grant
Amount
HEERF I:
Sum of
Estimated
Allocationsb
Estimated
Funding
Provided to
the State or
IHEs in the
State (Col. B
+ Col. C +
Col. D)b
Share of
GEER I,
ESSER I, and
HEERF I
Funds
Alabama
$48,853
$216,948
$276,905
$542,706
1.79%
Alaska
$6,504
$38,408
$14,325
$59,236
0.20%
Arizona
$69,199
$277,423
$307,738
$654,360
2.16%
Arkansas
$30,665
$128,759
$138,772
$298,196
0.99%
California
$355,238
$1,647,306
$1,831,906
$3,834,450
12.68%
Colorado
$44,006
$120,994
$181,815
$346,815
1.15%
Connecticut
$27,882
$111,068
$151,093
$290,043
0.96%
Delaware
$7,917
$43,493
$47,155
$98,565
0.33%
District of Columbia
$5,808
$42,006
$58,108
$105,923
0.35%
Florida
$173,591
$770,248
$828,861
$1,772,700
5.86%
Georgia
$105,724
$457,170
$473,234
$1,036,128
3.43%
Hawaii
$9,994
$43,385
$56,744
$110,123
0.36%
Idaho
$15,677
$47,855
$61,503
$125,034
0.41%
Illinois
$108,501
$569,467
$469,585
$1,147,553
3.79%
Indiana
$61,593
$214,473
$244,016
$520,082
1.72%
Iowa
$26,218
$71,626
$125,145
$222,989
0.74%
Kansas
$26,275
$84,529
$112,390
$223,194
0.74%
Kentucky
$43,712
$193,187
$165,949
$402,848
1.33%
Louisiana
$50,279
$286,980
$241,362
$578,621
1.91%
Maine
$9,274
$43,793
$44,051
$97,118
0.32%
Maryland
$45,659
$207,834
$241,500
$494,993
1.64%
Massachusetts
$50,845
$214,894
$304,327
$570,066
1.88%
Michigan
$89,435
$389,797
$369,838
$849,070
2.81%
Minnesota
$43,428
$140,137
$194,711
$378,276
1.25%

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

64
A
B
C
D
E
F
State/Entity
GEER I:
Actual
Grant
Amounta
ESSER I:
Actual
Grant
Amount
HEERF I:
Sum of
Estimated
Allocationsb
Estimated
Funding
Provided to
the State or
IHEs in the
State (Col. B
+ Col. C +
Col. D)b
Share of
GEER I,
ESSER I, and
HEERF I
Funds
Mississippi
$34,664
$169,883
$205,185
$409,732
1.35%
Missouri
$54,645
$208,443
$232,529
$495,617
1.64%
Montana
$8,765
$41,295
$42,656
$92,716
0.31%
Nebraska
$16,358
$65,085
$70,585
$152,029
0.50%
Nevada
$26,478
$117,185
$74,319
$217,982
0.72%
New Hampshire
$8,892
$37,641
$43,152
$89,685
0.30%
New Jersey
$68,867
$310,371
$351,944
$731,182
2.42%
New Mexico
$22,263
$108,575
$75,316
$206,154
0.68%
New York
$164,291
$1,037,046
$995,607
$2,196,944
7.26%
North Carolina
$95,642
$396,312
$474,669
$966,622
3.20%
North Dakota
$5,933
$33,298
$31,549
$70,780
0.23%
Ohio
$104,920
$489,205
$435,102
$1,029,227
3.40%
Oklahoma
$39,921
$160,950
$182,026
$382,897
1.27%
Oregon
$32,509
$121,099
$139,541
$293,148
0.97%
Pennsylvania
$104,421
$523,807
$531,091
$1,159,320
3.83%
Puerto Rico
$47,815
$349,113
$346,199
$743,126
2.46%
Rhode Island
$8,704
$46,350
$66,915
$121,970
0.40%
South Carolina
$48,470
$216,311
$208,903
$473,684
1.57%
South Dakota
$7,944
$41,295
$35,096
$84,336
0.28%
Tennessee
$63,584
$259,891
$276,821
$600,296
1.98%
Texas
$307,036
$1,285,886
$1,157,199
$2,750,121
9.09%
Utah
$29,190
$67,822
$149,085
$246,097
0.81%
Vermont
$4,489
$31,148
$24,267
$59,904
0.20%
Virginia
$66,777
$238,599
$347,162
$652,539
2.16%
Washington
$56,771
$216,892
$240,601
$514,264
1.70%
West Virginia
$16,354
$86,640
$82,049
$185,043
0.61%
Wisconsin
$46,552
$174,778
$192,864
$414,193
1.37%
Wyoming
$4,701
$32,563
$13,695
$50,958
0.17%
American Samoa
NA
NA
$1,624
$1,624
0.01%
Federated States of
Micronesia
NA
NA
$3,655
$3,655
0.01%
Guam
NA
NA
$6,237
$6,237
0.02%

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

65
A
B
C
D
E
F
State/Entity
GEER I:
Actual
Grant
Amounta
ESSER I:
Actual
Grant
Amount
HEERF I:
Sum of
Estimated
Allocationsb
Estimated
Funding
Provided to
the State or
IHEs in the
State (Col. B
+ Col. C +
Col. D)b
Share of
GEER I,
ESSER I, and
HEERF I
Funds
Marshall Islands
NA
NA
$1,964
$1,964
0.01%
Northern Mariana
Islands
NA
NA
$1,847
$1,847
0.01%
Palau
NA
NA
$763
$763
0.00%
U.S. Virgin Islands
NA
NA
$3,589
$3,589
0.01%
Additional fundsc
NA
NA
$50,000
$50,000
0.17%
Total
$2,953,230
$13,229,265
$14,036,839
$30,219,334
100.00%
Sources: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data available from the U.S.
Department of Education (ED) at https://oese.ed.gov/files/2021/06/
GEERI_Methodology_Table_Revised_6.25.21_FINAL.pdf (GEER 1), https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/04/ESSER-
Fund-State-Allocations-Table.pdf (ESSER I), and https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/caresact.html (HEERF
I).
Notes: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Percentages were calculated based on unrounded
numbers. NA = not applicable. The amounts exclude funds awarded to the outlying areas from the ESF
reservation for the outlying areas and from the ARPA appropriation for the outlying areas.
a.
As discussed in the source of data for GEER I grant amounts cited above, the GEER state grant amounts
were revised as of June 25, 2021, due to changes in the underlying data used to calculate GEER Fund state
grants. This table provides the revised state grant amounts.
b.
The HEERF allocation amounts are the estimated amounts available to eligible IHEs except that actual
awards under the CARES Act FIPSE IREPO program are included. Actual amounts awarded to IHEs may
differ from the estimates as IHEs must apply and/or agree to accept the terms and conditions of the awards.
These amounts do not take into account $353 million in rescissions from the CARES Act and CRRSAA,
enacted by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58).
c.
The additional funds to be allocated under the HEERF I are $50 million set aside by ED from the direct
grants for institutions that may have been eligible but may have been excluded by the formula.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

66
Table A-2. GEER Funds, ESSER Fund State Grants, and HEERF IHE Grants
Aggregated at the State Level for the CRRSAA ESF
(Dollars in thousands)
A
B
C
D
E
F
State/Entity
GEER II
(including
reservation
for EANS
program):
Actual
Grant
Amounta
ESSER II:
Actual
Grant
Amount
HEERF II:
Sum of
Estimated
Allocationsb
Estimated
Funding
Provided to
the State or
IHEs in the
State (Col. B
+ Col. C +
Col. D)b
Share of
GEER II,
ESSER II,
and HEERF
II Funds
Alabama
$66,859
$899,465
$447,968
$1,414,291
1.74%
Alaska
$8,192
$159,719
$26,372
$194,283
0.24%
Arizona
$85,323
$1,149,716
$456,191
$1,691,229
2.08%
Arkansas
$36,253
$558,017
$235,526
$829,797
1.02%
California
$341,469
$6,709,634
$3,104,065
$10,155,167
12.48%
Colorado
$47,868
$519,324
$300,329
$867,521
1.07%
Connecticut
$28,283
$492,426
$223,898
$744,608
0.91%
Delaware
$8,425
$182,885
$70,809
$262,119
0.32%
District of Columbia
$7,729
$172,013
$80,212
$259,954
0.32%
Florida
$288,791
$3,133,879
$1,406,743
$4,829,413
5.93%
Georgia
$126,259
$1,892,093
$822,753
$2,841,104
3.49%
Hawaii
$14,272
$183,595
$96,822
$294,689
0.36%
Idaho
$26,440
$195,890
$116,966
$339,296
0.42%
Illinois
$132,402
$2,250,805
$765,638
$3,148,845
3.87%
Indiana
$108,190
$888,184
$417,151
$1,413,525
1.74%
Iowa
$37,839
$344,864
$212,444
$595,148
0.73%
Kansas
$38,346
$369,830
$194,798
$602,974
0.74%
Kentucky
$59,918
$928,275
$288,247
$1,276,440
1.57%
Louisiana
$78,557
$1,160,119
$399,082
$1,637,758
2.01%
Maine
$16,834
$183,139
$73,202
$273,175
0.34%
Maryland
$56,614
$868,771
$373,157
$1,298,542
1.60%
Massachusetts
$46,854
$814,890
$482,831
$1,344,575
1.65%
Michigan
$125,666
$1,656,308
$615,386
$2,397,360
2.95%
Minnesota
$61,394
$588,036
$328,690
$978,120
1.20%
Mississippi
$46,935
$724,533
$331,922
$1,103,390
1.36%
Missouri
$91,696
$871,172
$381,905
$1,344,773
1.65%
Montana
$16,742
$170,099
$69,785
$256,626
0.32%
Nebraska
$24,434
$243,074
$123,525
$391,033
0.48%
Nevada
$31,388
$477,322
$124,538
$633,248
0.78%

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

67
A
B
C
D
E
F
State/Entity
GEER II
(including
reservation
for EANS
program):
Actual
Grant
Amounta
ESSER II:
Actual
Grant
Amount
HEERF II:
Sum of
Estimated
Allocationsb
Estimated
Funding
Provided to
the State or
IHEs in the
State (Col. B
+ Col. C +
Col. D)b
Share of
GEER II,
ESSER II,
and HEERF
II Funds
New Hampshire
$10,869
$156,066
$95,706
$262,641
0.32%
New Jersey
$98,681
$1,230,972
$546,435
$1,876,088
2.31%
New Mexico
$27,132
$435,939
$142,484
$605,555
0.74%
New York
$322,887
$4,002,382
$1,577,210
$5,902,479
7.25%
North Carolina
$127,753
$1,602,591
$772,042
$2,502,386
3.07%
North Dakota
$6,731
$135,924
$51,131
$193,787
0.24%
Ohio
$201,199
$1,991,251
$677,759
$2,870,209
3.53%
Oklahoma
$48,699
$665,039
$276,368
$990,106
1.22%
Oregon
$41,770
$499,154
$237,766
$778,689
0.96%
Pennsylvania
$197,105
$2,224,964
$785,075
$3,207,145
3.94%
Puerto Rico
$125,997
$1,320,626
$477,661
$1,924,285
2.36%
Rhode Island
$10,954
$184,792
$105,629
$301,374
0.37%
South Carolina
$61,075
$940,421
$335,104
$1,336,599
1.64%
South Dakota
$11,277
$170,099
$55,591
$236,967
0.29%
Tennessee
$100,646
$1,107,656
$469,756
$1,678,057
2.06%
Texas
$287,526
$5,529,552
$1,983,504
$7,800,582
9.59%
Utah
$37,180
$274,072
$293,452
$604,704
0.74%
Vermont
$6,215
$126,973
$37,562
$170,751
0.21%
Virginia
$76,589
$939,281
$547,440
$1,563,310
1.92%
Washington
$71,719
$824,852
$392,461
$1,289,032
1.58%
West Virginia
$16,113
$339,032
$120,913
$476,058
0.58%
Wisconsin
$98,328
$686,056
$327,637
$1,112,021
1.37%
Wyoming
$6,645
$135,231
$25,257
$167,133
0.21%
American Samoa
NA
NA
$2,679
$2,679
0.00%
Federated States of
Micronesia
NA
NA
$6,773
$6,773
0.01%
Guam
NA
NA
$10,486
$10,486
0.01%
Marshall Islands
NA
NA
$3,733
$3,733
0.00%
Northern Mariana
Islands
NA
NA
$3,286
$3,286
0.00%
Palau
NA
NA
$1,288
$1,288
0.00%
U.S. Virgin Islands
NA
NA
$6,824
$6,824
0.01%

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

68
A
B
C
D
E
F
State/Entity
GEER II
(including
reservation
for EANS
program):
Actual
Grant
Amounta
ESSER II:
Actual
Grant
Amount
HEERF II:
Sum of
Estimated
Allocationsb
Estimated
Funding
Provided to
the State or
IHEs in the
State (Col. B
+ Col. C +
Col. D)b
Share of
GEER II,
ESSER II,
and HEERF
II Funds
Additional fundsc
NA
NA
$75,023
$75,023
0.09%
Total
$4,053,060
$54,311,004
$23,014,987
$81,379,051
100.00%
Sources: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data available from the U.S.
Department of Education (ED) at https://oese.ed.gov/files/2021/06/FINAL_GEERII_EANS-
Methodology_Table_Revised_6.25.21.pdf (GEER II), https://oese.ed.gov/files/2021/01/
Final_ESSERII_Methodology_Table_1.5.21.pdf (ESSER II), and https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/
crrsaa.html (HEERF II).
Notes: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Percentages were calculated based on unrounded
numbers. NA = not applicable. The amounts exclude funds awarded to the outlying areas from the ESF
reservation for the outlying areas and from the ARPA appropriation for the outlying areas.
a.
As discussed in the source of data for GEER II grant amounts cited above, the GEER state grant amounts
were revised as of June 25, 2021, due to changes in the underlying data used to calculate GEER Fund state
grants. This table provides the revised state grant amounts.
b.
With a few exceptions, the HEERF allocation amounts are initial amounts available to IHEs. Actual amounts
awarded to IHEs may differ as IHEs must apply and/or agree to accept the terms and conditions of the
awards. These amounts exclude $353 million in rescissions from the CARES Act and CRRSAA, enacted by
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58).
c.
The additional funds to be allocated under the HEERF II are $75 million to be awarded under the MSI
Historically Black Colleges and Universities program in accordance with each IHE’s inverse share of total
endowments.
Table A-3. EANS Program, ESSER Fund State Grants, and HEERF IHE Grants
Aggregated at the State Level for the ARPA
(Dollars in thousands)
A
B
C
D
E
F
State/Entity
EANS
Program:
Actual
Grant
Amount
ESSER III
(not
including
reservation
for
Homeless
Education):
Actual
Grant
Amounta
HEERF III:
Sum of
Estimated
Allocationsb
Estimated
Funding
Provided to
the State or
IHEs in the
State (Col. B
+ Col. C +
Col. D)b
Share of
EANS
Program,
ESSER III,
and HEERF
III Funds
Alabama
$44,896
$2,021,519
$804,762
$2,871,177
1.75%
Alaska
$5,882
$358,771
$42,283
$406,936
0.25%
Arizona
$54,445
$2,583,944
$716,726
$3,355,114
2.04%
Arkansas
$22,903
$1,254,120
$412,738
$1,689,762
1.03%
California
$181,312
$15,079,696
$5,286,298
$20,547,306
12.51%

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

69
A
B
C
D
E
F
State/Entity
EANS
Program:
Actual
Grant
Amount
ESSER III
(not
including
reservation
for
Homeless
Education):
Actual
Grant
Amounta
HEERF III:
Sum of
Estimated
Allocationsb
Estimated
Funding
Provided to
the State or
IHEs in the
State (Col. B
+ Col. C +
Col. D)b
Share of
EANS
Program,
ESSER III,
and HEERF
III Funds
Colorado
$28,710
$1,167,154
$517,560
$1,713,424
1.04%
Connecticut
$15,957
$1,106,697
$380,399
$1,503,053
0.91%
Delaware
$3,889
$410,861
$123,298
$538,049
0.33%
District of Columbia
$4,534
$386,477
$133,015
$524,026
0.32%
Florida
$221,189
$7,043,370
$2,406,113
$9,670,672
5.89%
Georgia
$75,408
$4,252,432
$1,420,005
$5,747,845
3.50%
Hawaii
$10,365
$412,530
$143,087
$565,982
0.34%
Idaho
$21,962
$440,132
$207,298
$669,392
0.41%
Illinois
$83,246
$5,058,602
$1,324,114
$6,465,962
3.94%
Indiana
$78,874
$1,996,145
$715,283
$2,790,302
1.70%
Iowa
$23,744
$775,053
$374,657
$1,173,454
0.71%
Kansas
$25,070
$831,171
$346,843
$1,203,084
0.73%
Kentucky
$42,666
$2,001,217
$496,027
$2,539,909
1.55%
Louisiana
$55,674
$2,607,344
$696,897
$3,359,915
2.04%
Maine
$12,327
$411,429
$125,933
$549,689
0.33%
Maryland
$39,249
$1,952,539
$650,508
$2,642,295
1.61%
Massachusetts
$24,826
$1,831,417
$846,870
$2,703,114
1.65%
Michigan
$86,894
$3,722,478
$1,060,458
$4,869,831
2.96%
Minnesota
$40,489
$1,321,564
$567,463
$1,929,517
1.17%
Mississippi
$30,461
$1,628,366
$576,369
$2,235,197
1.36%
Missouri
$68,642
$1,957,916
$679,046
$2,705,604
1.65%
Montana
$12,063
$382,019
$121,959
$516,041
0.31%
Nebraska
$18,619
$546,290
$217,666
$782,575
0.48%
Nevada
$18,181
$1,072,783
$213,515
$1,304,480
0.79%
New Hampshire
$6,699
$350,561
$166,184
$523,444
0.32%
New Jersey
$70,948
$2,766,530
$943,696
$3,781,173
2.30%
New Mexico
$17,426
$979,762
$244,917
$1,242,105
0.76%
New York
$252,458
$8,995,282
$2,738,368
$11,986,109
7.29%
North Carolina
$82,952
$3,601,780
$1,316,822
$5,001,554
3.04%
North Dakota
$4,151
$305,338
$95,798
$405,287
0.25%

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

70
A
B
C
D
E
F
State/Entity
EANS
Program:
Actual
Grant
Amount
ESSER III
(not
including
reservation
for
Homeless
Education):
Actual
Grant
Amounta
HEERF III:
Sum of
Estimated
Allocationsb
Estimated
Funding
Provided to
the State or
IHEs in the
State (Col. B
+ Col. C +
Col. D)b
Share of
EANS
Program,
ESSER III,
and HEERF
III Funds
Ohio
$155,190
$4,475,244
$1,184,794
$5,815,228
3.54%
Oklahoma
$31,482
$1,494,647
$455,735
$1,981,864
1.21%
Oregon
$28,356
$1,121,815
$416,862
$1,567,032
0.95%
Pennsylvania
$152,741
$5,000,509
$1,350,391
$6,503,642
3.96%
Puerto Rico
$104,193
$2,968,079
$787,143
$3,859,416
2.35%
Rhode Island
$6,210
$415,146
$184,659
$606,015
0.37%
South Carolina
$40,560
$2,113,568
$605,077
$2,759,205
1.68%
South Dakota
$7,609
$382,019
$95,859
$485,488
0.30%
Tennessee
$73,683
$2,489,423
$823,647
$3,386,753
2.06%
Texas
$152,146
$12,427,523
$3,441,191
$16,020,860
9.75%
Utah
$26,428
$615,929
$505,968
$1,148,326
0.70%
Vermont
$3,877
$285,223
$66,349
$355,449
0.22%
Virginia
$46,344
$2,110,989
$950,840
$3,108,174
1.89%
Washington
$45,745
$1,853,788
$679,928
$2,579,461
1.57%
West Virginia
$9,764
$761,960
$212,711
$984,435
0.60%
Wisconsin
$73,876
$1,541,867
$580,126
$2,195,869
1.34%
Wyoming
$4,683
$303,779
$44,604
$353,067
0.21%
American Samoa
NA
NA
$6,927
$6,927
0.00%
Federated States of
Micronesia
NA
NA
$17,413
$17,413
0.01%
Guam
NA
NA
$27,792
$27,792
0.02%
Marshall Islands
NA
NA
$9,608
$9,608
0.01%
Northern Mariana Islands
NA
NA
$8,425
$8,425
0.01%
Palau
NA
NA
$3,317
$3,317
0.00%
U.S. Virgin Islands
NA
NA
$12,225
$12,225
0.01%
Additional funds
NA
NA
$0
$0
0.00%
Total
$2,750,000
$121,974,800
$39,584,570
$164,309,370
100.00%
Sources: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data available from the U.S.
Department of Education (ED) at https://oese.ed.gov/files/2021/04/Final_ARP-EANS-Methodology-and-Table-
3.16.21.pdf (EANS II), https://oese.ed.gov/files/2021/06/Revised-ARP-ESSER-Methodology-and-Allocation-
Table_6.25.21_FINAL.pdf (ESSER III), and https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/arp.html (HEERF III).

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

71
Notes: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Percentages were calculated based on unrounded
numbers. NA = not applicable. The amounts exclude funds awarded to the outlying areas from the ESF
reservation for the outlying areas and from the ARPA appropriation for the outlying areas.
a.
As discussed in the source for ESSER III grant amounts cited above, the ESSER state grant amounts were
revised as of June 25, 2021, due to changes in the underlying data used to calculate ESSER Fund state grants.
While the change in the underlying data affected ESSER state grants under the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and
ARPA, all of the needed adjustments in state grant amounts were made to the ESSER state grants funded by
the ARPA. This table provides the revised state grant amounts. The $800 million reservation for homeless
education was not included in the table. The total appropriation for ESSER III including the $800 million
reservation is $122,774,800,000.
b.
With a few exceptions, the HEERF allocation amounts are initial amounts available to eligible IHEs. Actual
amounts awarded to IHEs may differ as IHEs must apply and/or agree to accept the terms and conditions of
the awards. These amounts exclude $400 million in rescissions enacted by the Keep Kids Fed Act of 2022
(P.L. 117-158).

Table A-4. Total GEER Funds, EANS Program, ESSER Fund State Grants, and HEERF
IHE Grants Aggregated at the State Level for the CARES Act, CRRSAA,
and ARPA ESF
(Dollars in thousands)
A
B
C
D
E
F
State/Entity
GEER and
EANS
Program:
Actual
Grant
Amounta
ESSER:
Actual
Grant
Amountb
HEERF: Sum
of Estimated
Allocationsc
Estimated
Funding
Provided to
the State or
IHEs in the
State (Col. B
+ Col. C +
Col. D)c
Share of
Total GEER
and EANS
Program,
ESSER, and
HEERF
Funds
Alabama
$160,608
$3,137,931
$1,529,635
$4,828,174
1.75%
Alaska
$20,578
$556,898
$82,979
$660,456
0.24%
Arizona
$208,966
$4,011,082
$1,480,655
$5,700,703
2.07%
Arkansas
$89,821
$1,940,896
$787,037
$2,817,755
1.02%
California
$878,019
$23,436,636
$10,222,268
$34,536,923
12.52%
Colorado
$120,584
$1,807,472
$999,704
$2,927,760
1.06%
Connecticut
$72,122
$1,710,191
$755,390
$2,537,703
0.92%
Delaware
$20,232
$637,239
$241,263
$898,734
0.33%
District of Columbia
$18,070
$600,497
$271,335
$889,902
0.32%
Florida
$683,571
$10,947,497
$4,641,717
$16,272,785
5.90%
Georgia
$307,391
$6,601,694
$2,715,992
$9,625,077
3.49%
Hawaii
$34,630
$639,511
$296,653
$970,794
0.35%
Idaho
$64,078
$683,877
$385,767
$1,133,723
0.41%
Illinois
$324,149
$7,878,874
$2,559,336
$10,762,360
3.90%
Indiana
$248,657
$3,098,801
$1,376,450
$4,723,908
1.71%
Iowa
$87,801
$1,191,543
$712,247
$1,991,591
0.72%
Kansas
$89,691
$1,285,529
$654,031
$2,029,251
0.74%

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

72
A
B
C
D
E
F
State/Entity
GEER and
EANS
Program:
Actual
Grant
Amounta
ESSER:
Actual
Grant
Amountb
HEERF: Sum
of Estimated
Allocationsc
Estimated
Funding
Provided to
the State or
IHEs in the
State (Col. B
+ Col. C +
Col. D)c
Share of
Total GEER
and EANS
Program,
ESSER, and
HEERF
Funds
Kentucky
$146,296
$3,122,679
$950,223
$4,219,197
1.53%
Louisiana
$184,510
$4,054,444
$1,337,341
$5,576,295
2.02%
Maine
$38,435
$638,361
$243,186
$919,982
0.33%
Maryland
$141,522
$3,029,144
$1,265,165
$4,435,831
1.61%
Massachusetts
$122,525
$2,861,202
$1,634,028
$4,617,755
1.67%
Michigan
$301,996
$5,768,584
$2,045,682
$8,116,261
2.94%
Minnesota
$145,310
$2,049,738
$1,090,864
$3,285,913
1.19%
Mississippi
$112,060
$2,522,782
$1,113,476
$3,748,318
1.36%
Missouri
$214,982
$3,037,532
$1,293,480
$4,545,995
1.65%
Montana
$37,570
$593,414
$234,399
$865,383
0.31%
Nebraska
$59,411
$854,449
$411,777
$1,325,637
0.48%
Nevada
$76,047
$1,667,291
$412,372
$2,155,709
0.78%
New Hampshire
$26,460
$544,268
$305,042
$875,770
0.32%
New Jersey
$238,495
$4,307,873
$1,842,075
$6,388,443
2.32%
New Mexico
$66,822
$1,524,275
$462,718
$2,053,815
0.74%
New York
$739,636
$14,034,710
$5,311,186
$20,085,532
7.28%
North Carolina
$306,347
$5,600,683
$2,563,532
$8,470,562
3.07%
North Dakota
$16,816
$474,560
$178,478
$669,854
0.24%
Ohio
$461,310
$6,955,700
$2,297,655
$9,714,665
3.52%
Oklahoma
$120,102
$2,320,636
$914,129
$3,354,867
1.22%
Oregon
$102,634
$1,742,068
$794,168
$2,638,870
0.96%
Pennsylvania
$454,268
$7,749,281
$2,666,558
$10,870,107
3.94%
Puerto Rico
$278,006
$4,637,818
$1,611,002
$6,526,826
2.37%
Rhode Island
$25,868
$646,288
$357,204
$1,029,359
0.37%
South Carolina
$150,104
$3,270,299
$1,149,084
$4,569,488
1.66%
South Dakota
$26,830
$593,414
$186,546
$806,790
0.29%
Tennessee
$237,913
$3,856,971
$1,570,223
$5,665,107
2.05%
Texas
$746,708
$19,242,962
$6,581,893
$26,571,563
9.63%
Utah
$92,799
$957,822
$948,505
$1,999,126
0.72%
Vermont
$14,582
$443,345
$128,178
$586,104
0.21%
Virginia
$189,710
$3,288,869
$1,845,443
$5,324,022
1.93%

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

73
A
B
C
D
E
F
State/Entity
GEER and
EANS
Program:
Actual
Grant
Amounta
ESSER:
Actual
Grant
Amountb
HEERF: Sum
of Estimated
Allocationsc
Estimated
Funding
Provided to
the State or
IHEs in the
State (Col. B
+ Col. C +
Col. D)c
Share of
Total GEER
and EANS
Program,
ESSER, and
HEERF
Funds
Washington
$174,235
$2,895,533
$1,312,991
$4,382,758
1.59%
West Virginia
$42,230
$1,187,633
$415,673
$1,645,536
0.60%
Wisconsin
$218,755
$2,402,701
$1,100,627
$3,722,084
1.35%
Wyoming
$16,029
$471,573
$83,556
$571,158
0.21%
American Samoa
NA
NA
$11,230
$11,230
0.00%
Federated States of
Micronesia
NA
NA
$27,841
$27,841
0.01%
Guam
NA
NA
$44,515
$44,515
0.02%
Marshall Islands
NA
NA
$15,306
$15,306
0.01%
Northern Mariana Islands
NA
NA
$13,558
$13,558
0.00%
Palau
NA
NA
$5,367
$5,367
0.00%
U.S. Virgin Islands
NA
NA
$22,639
$22,639
0.01%
Additional fundsd
NA
NA
$125,023
$125,023
0.05%
Total
$9,756,290
$189,515,069
$76,636,396
$275,907,755
100.00%
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data available from the U.S.
Department of Education (ED).
CARES Act: https://oese.ed.gov/files/2021/06/GEERI_Methodology_Table_Revised_6.25.21_FINAL.pdf (GEER 1),
https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/04/ESSER-Fund-State-Allocations-Table.pdf (ESSER I), and https://www2.ed.gov/
about/offices/list/ope/caresact.html (HEERF I).
CRRSAA: https://oese.ed.gov/files/2021/06/FINAL_GEERII_EANS-Methodology_Table_Revised_6.25.21.pdf
(GEER II), https://oese.ed.gov/files/2021/01/Final_ESSERII_Methodology_Table_1.5.21.pdf (ESSER II), and
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/crrsaa.html (HEERF II).
ARPA: https://oese.ed.gov/files/2021/04/Final_ARP-EANS-Methodology-and-Table-3.16.21.pdf (EANS II),
https://oese.ed.gov/files/2021/06/Revised-ARP-ESSER-Methodology-and-Allocation-Table_6.25.21_FINAL.pdf
(ESSER III), and https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/arp.html (HEERF III).
Notes: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Percentages were calculated based on unrounded
numbers. NA = not applicable. The amounts exclude funds awarded to the outlying areas from the ESF
reservation for the outlying areas and from the ARPA appropriation for the outlying areas.
a.
As discussed in the sources of data for GEER I and GEER II grant amounts cited above, the GEER state grant
amounts were revised as of June 25, 2021, due to changes in the underlying data used to calculate GEER
Fund state grants. This table provides the revised state grant amounts.
b.
As discussed in the source for ESSER III grant amounts cited above, the ESSER state grant amounts were
revised as of June 25, 2021, due to changes in the underlying data used to calculate ESSER Fund state grants.
While the change in the underlying data affected ESSER state grants under the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and
ARPA, all of the needed adjustments in state grant amounts were made to the ESSER state grants funded by
the ARPA. This table provides the revised state grant amounts. The $800 million reservation for homeless
education is not included in the table. The total appropriation for ESSER III including the $800 million
reservation is $122,774,800,000.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

74
c.
With a few exceptions, the HEERF allocation amounts are initial amounts available to eligible institutions of
higher education (IHEs). Actual amounts awarded to IHEs may differ as IHEs must apply and/or agree to
accept the terms and conditions of the awards. These amounts exclude $753 million in rescissions enacted
by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58) and the Keep Kids Fed Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-
158).
d.
The additional funds to be allocated under HEERF are $50 million set aside by ED from the HEERF I direct
grants for institutions that may have been eligible but that may have excluded by the formula and $75
million to be awarded under the HEERF II MSI Historically Black Colleges and Universities program in
accordance with each IHE’s inverse share of total endowments.

CRS-75
Table A-5. Actual Grants to the Outlying Areas from ESF Funds Reserved Under the CARES Act and CRRSAA, and from
Funds for the Outlying Areas Under the ARPA, for Programs Administered by ED
(Dollars in thousands)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J

CARES Act ESF
CRRSAA ESF

Outlying Area
GEER Fund
ESSER Fund
Total (Col.
B + Col. C)
GEER Fund
ESSER Fund
Total (Col.
E + Col. F)
ARPA
Total (Col.
D + Col. G
+ Col. H)
Share of
Total
American Samoa
$7,272
$38,322
$45,594
$19,364
$102,042
$121,406
$264,826
$431,827
30.56%
Commonwealth
of the Northern
Mariana Islands
$4,777
$23,164
$27,941
$12,721
$61,680
$74,400
$160,075
$262,416
18.57%
Guam
$12,500
$41,522
$54,022
$33,284
$110,563
$143,848
$286,941
$484,810
34.31%
U.S. Virgin
Islands
$6,201
$19,992
$26,193
$16,511
$53,235
$69,746
$138,158
$234,097
16.57%
Total
$30,750
$123,000
$153,750
$81,880
$327,520
$409,400
$850,000
$1,413,150
100.00%
Sources: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data available from U. S. Department of Education (ED), Education Stabilization Fund
Allocations to the Outlying Areas, May 2020, https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/05/OA-Allocations-Table.pdf; ED, Education Stabilization Fund II Allocations to the Outlying Areas,
January 11, 2021; and ED, American Rescue Plan Allocations to the Outlying Areas, April 6, 2021, https://oese.ed.gov/files/2021/04/ARP-OAs-Methodology-and-Table.docx.
Notes: Details may not round to totals due to rounding. Percentages were calculated based on unrounded numbers. The ARPA did not provide funds for the outlying
areas under the ESF. Rather, the outlying areas received an appropriation of $850,000,000 under Title II—Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions—of the
ARPA. These funds are to be allocated by the Secretary of Education based upon the respective needs of the outlying areas. The ARPA did not define the term outlying
areas for purposes of the Title II funds. The amounts exclude funds allocated to IHEs in the outlying areas through the HEERF.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

76
Appendix B. Obligation and Liquidation of
Funds Under ESF Programs
This appendix provides specific information about the obligation and liquidation of
appropriations provided under the GEER Fund, EANS program, ESSER Fund, and HEERF, as
funded under the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA.149
All periods of obligation and liquidation discussed in this appendix are the maximum amount of
time an entity has available to obligate or liquidate funds that have been awarded by ED. The
entity is not required to use the maximum amount of time available to do so.
It may be possible for a grantee to receive an extension of time to obligate or liquidate funds
beyond the periods included in the tables below. These options are discussed below. However,
extensions of the period to obligate or liquidate funds cannot extend beyond the date on which the
funds revert to the U.S. Treasury. At that point, the funds are no longer available for obligation or
liquidation.
The remainder of this appendix discusses the obligation and liquidation of funds under the GEER
Fund, EANS program, ESSER Fund, and HEERF. The GEER Fund, EANS program, and ESSER
Fund are discussed in one section and the HEERF is discussed in a subsequent section, as the
requirements for the obligation and liquidation of funds differ for state-administered programs
(i.e., the GEER Fund, EANS program, and ESSER Fund) and non-state-administered programs
(i.e., HEERF).
Obligation and Liquidation of Funds Under the GEER Fund, EANS
Program, and ESSER Fund
This section discusses the obligation and liquidation of funds under the GEER Fund, EANS
program, and ESSER Fund, which are all state-administered programs. While there are similar
provisions that apply to all of these programs, they each have unique features. This section begins
with a general discussion of provisions that apply to all three programs, followed by a discussion
of provisions specific to each program.
For the GEER Fund, EANS program, and ESSER Fund, the period of availability of funds varies
for funds appropriated under the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA but is the same for each of
the three programs under each act in which the program is authorized. For the GEER Fund,
EANS program, and ESSER Fund, Section 421 of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA),
commonly referred to as the Tydings period or Tydings amendment, extends the period of
obligation of funds by LEAs and other subrecipients of grants by one year beyond the period of
availability included in statutory language.150 Following the Tydings period, LEAs and other
subgrantees have 120 days to liquidate the obligated funds.151

149 Obligation and liquidation periods for funds provided to the outlying areas and BIE under the ESF as provided by
the CARES Act and CRRSAA are not specifically discussed.
150 The Tydings period only applies to programs administered by ED that are subject to 34 C.F.R., Part 76, which
includes state-administered formula grant programs.
151 2 C.F.R. §200.344.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

77
For state-administered programs, ED will consider late liquidation requests that, if approved,
extend the period for the liquidation of funds.152 Thus, under the GEER Fund, EANS program,
and ESSER Fund, an LEA or subgrantee (or SEA with respect to administrative funds) may
request that ED provide a late liquidation period. Such a request must be submitted to ED no later
than 18 months after the end of the Tydings period.153 According to ED policy, “in all
circumstances, including late liquidations, Federal funds may be used only for obligations that
were incurred during the grant period (including the Tydings period) and only for allowable costs
under the relevant program.”154 ED will only consider late liquidation requests beyond 18 months
from the end of the Tydings period under “extraordinary circumstances or in cases involving
lengthy construction contracts.”155 ED reiterated that it has the authority to approve liquidation
extension requests for funds that have been obligated by the relevant deadline in a letter on May
13, 2022.156 The letter stated that extensions beyond 18 months may be granted if the need for the
extension is related to “extraordinary circumstances.” For the GEER fund, EANS program, and
the ESSER Fund, funds will revert to the U.S. Treasury five years from the end of the original
period of availability (as opposed to the end of the Tydings period).157
GEER Fund
Table B-1 details obligation158 and liquidation periods for the GEER Fund. These requirements
apply to the subgrant recipients under the fund. Statutory provisions require that any funds not
awarded by a governor within one year of receipt must be returned to ED for distribution to other
states.

152 U.S. Department of Education, Extension of Liquidation Periods and Related Accounting Adjustments for Grantees
under Department of Education State-Administered Programs, June 5, 2007, https://www2.ed.gov/policy/fund/guid/
lateliquidation.doc. (Hereinafter referred to as ED, Extension of Liquidation Periods, 2007.)
153 ED, Extension of Liquidation Periods, 2007.
154 ED, Extension of Liquidation Periods, 2007, p. 3.
155 ED, Extension of Liquidation Periods, 2007, pp. 2-3.
156 Letter from Roberto J. Rodriguez, Assistant Secretary, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development,
U.S. Department of Education, to Dr. Daniel Domenech, Executive Director, AASA, May 13, 2022,
https://oese.ed.gov/files/2022/05/Late-Liquidation-Letter.pdf. For more information, see, for example, Letter from
James F. Lane, Senior Advisor, Office of the Secretary, to 84.425C Grantees and 84.425D Grantees, September 28,
2022, https://oese.ed.gov/files/2022/09/CARES-ESSER-and-GEER-Liquidation-Extension-Request-Letter-9.29.22.pdf.
157 ED, Extension of Liquidation Periods, 2007.
158 Subgrants to an LEA, IHE, or other education-related entity by the governor are not considered an obligation of
funds. Funds are considered obligated when the LEA, IHE, or other education-related entity commits those funds to a
specific purpose. For more information, see U.S. Department of Education, Frequently Asked Questions About the
Governors Emergency Education Relief Fund (GEER Fund), 2020, Item A-19, https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/10/FAQs-
GEER-Fund.pdf.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

78
Table B-1. Obligation and Liquidation Periods for the GEER Fund Under the
CARES Act and CRRSAA
Act
Period of
Availability in
Law
Period of
Time for
Governors to
Subgrant
Awards
(Before
Funds Revert
to ED)
Extension of
Period of
Obligation
for LEAs and
Other
Subgrantees
(Tydings
Period)
120-Day
Extension for
LEAs and
Other
Subgrantees
to Liquidate
Funds
Following
Tydings
Period
18-Month
Request
Period for
Late
Liquidation
for LEAs and
Other
Subgrantees
Following
Tydings
Period
(Requires ED
Approval)
Date on
Which Funds
Revert to the
U.S.
Treasury
CARES Act
Through
9/30/2021
One year from
receipt of funds
Through
9/30/2022
Through
1/28/2023
Through
3/30/2024
9/30/2026
CRRSAA
Through
9/30/2022
One year from
receipt of funds
Through
9/20/2023
Through
1/28/2024
Through
3/30/2025
9/30/2027
Sources: Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of provisions in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act (CARES Act; P.L. 116-136); the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2021 (CRRSAA) included as Division M in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021
(CAA; P.L. 116-260; and CRS email correspondence with the U.S. Department of Education, May 4-5, 2021.
Note: The GEER Fund did not receive appropriations under the ARPA.
EANS Program159
Table B-2 and Table B-3 detail obligation and liquidation periods for the EANS program. There
are two sets of obligation and expenditure requirements for this program depending on whether
the funds are being used to serve private schools (Table B-2) or whether the funds have reverted
to the governor (Table B-3).
Per statutory requirements, SEAs have six months from the receipt of funds by the state to
obligate funds to provide assistance and services to nonpublic schools. The funds may be
expended through September 30, 2023, for funds appropriated under the CRRSAA and though
September 30, 2024, for funds appropriated under the ARPA. In addition, the 120-day liquidation
period, as well as the late liquidation or liquidation extension provisions, also apply.
After the six-month period that SEAs have to obligate funds to serve private schools, any funds
not obligated for these purposes revert to the governor to use for purposes authorized by the
GEER Fund under the CRRSAA.160 Unlike the GEER Fund, funds that revert to the governor do
not have to be awarded within one year of the original receipt of the funds by the state. The funds
remain available for obligation under CRRSAA through September 30, 2023, and under the
ARPA through September 30, 2024. The 120-day liquidation period, as well as the late liquidation
or liquidation extension provisions, also apply.

159 The details of the obligation and expenditure requirements that pertain to the EANS program were provided to CRS
in an email from U.S. Department of Education, May 20, 2022.
160 This requirement only applies if the SEA has met certain requirements related to obligating funds to provide
assistance and services to nonpublic schools. For example, an SEA must have distributed information about the EANS
program to nonpublic schools and make the information and application to apply for services or assistances easily
available. An SEA must also process all applications submitted promptly and approve or deny an application not later
than 30 days after the date of receipt.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

79
Table B-2. Obligation and Liquidation Periods for the EANS Program Under the
CRRSAA and ARPA: Funds Used to Serve Private Schools
Act
Period of
Availability
in Law
Period of Time
for SEAs to
Obligate Funds
to Provide
Services and
Assistance to
Nonpublic
Schools
Extension of
Period of
Expenditure
of Funds
(Tydings
Period)
120-Day
Extension
Following
Tydings
Period
18-Month
Late
Liquidation
Request
Period
Following
Tydings
Period
(Requires ED
Approval)
Date on
Which
Funds
Revert to
the U.S.
Treasury
CRRSAA
Through
9/30/2022
Six months from
receipt of funds
Through
9/30/2023
Through
1/28/2024
Through
3/30/2025
9/30/2027
ARPA
Through
9/30/2023
Six months from
receipt of funds
Through
9/30/2024
Through
1/28/2025
Through
3/30/2026
9/30/2028
Sources: Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of provisions in the Coronavirus Response and Relief
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021 (CRRSAA) included as Division M in the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2021 (CAA; P.L. 116-260); the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA; P.L. 117-2); and CRS email
correspondence with the U.S. Department of Education, May 4-5, 2021 and May 20, 2022.
Notes: EANS did not receive appropriations under the CARES Act. LEAs = local educational agencies.
Table B-3. Obligation and Liquidation Periods for the EANS Program Under the
CRRSAA and ARPA: Funds Reverting to the Governor
Act
Period of
Availability
in Law
Period of Time
for SEAs to
Obligate Funds
to Provide
Services and
Assistance to
Nonpublic
Schools After
Which Funds
Revert to the
Governor to
Use Under the
GEER Fund,
Assuming SEA
Met Certain
Requirements
Extension of
Period of
Obligation
for LEAs and
Other
Subgrantees
(Tydings
Period)
120-Day
Extension for
LEAs and
Other
Subgrantees
to Liquidate
Funds
Following
Tydings
Period
18-Month
Late
Liquidation
Request
Period for
LEAs and
Other
Subgrantees
Following
Tydings
Period
(Requires ED
Approval)
Date on
Which
Funds
Revert to
the U.S.
Treasury
CRRSAA
Through
9/30/2022
All funds not
obligated to
serve private
schools within six
months revert to
the governor
Through
9/30/2023
Through
1/28/2024
Through
3/30/2025
9/30/2027
ARPA
Through
9/30/2023
Six months from
receipt of funds
Through
9/30/2024
Through
1/28/2025
Through
3/30/2026
9/30/2028
Sources: Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of provisions in the Coronavirus Response and Relief
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021 (CRRSAA) included as Division M in the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2021 (CAA; P.L. 116-260); the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA; P.L. 117-2); and CRS email
correspondence with the U.S. Department of Education, May 4-5, 2021, and May 20, 2022.
Notes: EANS did not receive appropriations under the CARES Act. LEAs = local educational agencies.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

80
Table B-4 details obligation161 and liquidation periods for the ESSER Fund. These requirements
generally do not apply to funds allocated to SEAs under the ESSER Fund, as statutory provisions
require that any funds not awarded by an SEA within one year of receipt must be returned to ED
for distribution to other states. The one exception to this is that funds allocated to SEAs that are
retained by the SEA for administrative purposes are subject to the obligation and liquidation
periods detailed in Table B-4.162 The requirements detailed in Table B-4 also apply to subgrant
recipients under the ESSER Fund, including LEAs.
An SEA awards funds when it makes a subgrant to an LEA or, in the case of the SEA Reserve,
when it enters into a subgrant or contract with a subrecipient. ESSER funds are obligated when
the subrecipient commits those funds to specific purposes consistent with 34 C.F.R. Section
76.707. If an SEA awards a contract from the SEA Reserve, that is an obligation. In contrast,
subgranting funds to an LEA or other subrecipient is not an obligation; rather, these funds are not
obligated until the LEA or other subrecipient commits the funds to specific purposes.
Table B-4. Obligation and Liquidation Periods for the ESSER Fund Under the
CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA
Act
Period of
Availability in
Law
Period of
Time for
SEAs to
Subgrant
Awards
(Before Funds
Revert to ED)
Extension of
Period of
Obligation for
LEAs, Other
Subgrantees,
and Funds
Reserved by
SEA for
Administration
(Tydings
Period)
120-Day
Extension
for LEAs,
Other
Subgrantees,
and SEAs
(Administra-
tive Funds
Only) to
Liquidate
Funds
Following
Tydings
Period
18-Month
Late
Liquidation
Request
Period for
LEAs, Other
Subgrantees,
and SEAs
(Administra-
tive Funds
Only)
Following
Tydings
Period
(Requires ED
Approval)
Date on
Which Funds
Revert to the
U.S. Treasury
CARES Act
Through
9/30/2021
One year from
receipt of funds
Through
9/30/2022
Through
1/28/2023
Through
3/30/2024
9/30/2026
CRRSAA
Through
9/30/2022
One year from
receipt of funds
Through
9/30/2023
Through
1/28/2024
Through
3/30/2025
9/30/2027
ARPA
Through
9/30/2023
One year from
receipt of funds
Through
9/30/2024
Through
1/28/2025
Through
3/30/2026
9/30/2028
Sources: Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of provisions in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act (CARES Act; P.L. 116-136); the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental

161 In its ESSER guidance, ED specifies what constitutes an obligation of ESSER funds: “An SEA awards funds when
it makes a subgrant to an LEA or, in the case of the SEA Reserve, when it enters into a subgrant or contract with a
subrecipient. ESSER funds are obligated when the subrecipient commits those funds to specific purposes consistent
with 34 C.F.R. § 76.707. If an SEA awards a contract from the SEA reserve, that is an obligation. In contrast,
subgranting funds to an LEA or other subrecipient is not an obligation; rather, these funds are not obligated until the
LEA or other subrecipient commits the funds to specific purposes.” (U.S. Department of Education, Frequently Asked
Questions About the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER Fund), 2020, Item 10,
https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/05/ESSER-Fund-Frequently-Asked-Questions.pdf.)
162 U.S. Department of Education, Frequently Asked Questions about the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency
Relief Fund (ESSER Fund), 2020, https://oese.ed.gov/files/2020/05/ESSER-Fund-Frequently-Asked-Questions.pdf.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

81
Appropriations Act, 2021 (CRRSAA) included as Division M in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021
(CAA; P.L. 116-260); the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA; P.L. 117-2); and CRS email correspondence
with the U.S. Department of Education, May 4-5, 2021.
Obligations and Liquidation of Funds Under the HEERF
This section discusses the obligation and liquidation of funds under the HEERF programs. The
HEERF programs are direct grant programs because the authorizing statute does not provide a
formula for allocating program funds among eligible states.163 The obligation and liquidation of
funds under HEERF differs from those under the GEER Fund, EANS program, and ESSER Fund,
which are all state-administered programs. Unlike the GEER Fund, EANS program, or ESSER
Fund, ED has indicated that there is not a Tydings period associated with HEERF.164
Table B-5 details obligation and liquidation periods for the HEERF programs. With the exception
of the CARES Act FIPSE grants awarded under the IREPO Grants program that have an initial
grant period of up to 24 months, the HEERF awards originally had a one-year performance
period. On April 4, 2022, ED extended the performance period for all open HEERF grants with a
balance greater than $1,000 through June 30, 2023. An IHE may request a no cost extension
(NCE) of the period of performance of up to 12 months to complete the project activities.165 This
NCE requires ED approval. Following the period of performance, there is a 120-day extension
period for IHEs to liquidate their funds. Funds will revert to the U.S. Treasury five years from the
end of the original period of availability.166
Table B-5. Obligation and Liquidation Periods for IHEs Under the HEERF Under the
CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA
Act
Period of
Availability in
Law
Period of Time
to Obligate
Funds (Period of
Performance)
No Cost
Extension
(Requires ED
Approval)
120-Day
Extension to
Liquidate
Funds
Following the
Period of
Performance
Date on
Which
Funds
Revert to
the U.S.
Treasury
CARES Acta
NAb
June 30, 2023c
Up to 12 months
after the end of
the period of
performance
120 days after the
end of the period
of performance
9/30/2026
CRRSAA
NAb
June 30, 2023c
Up to 12 months
after the end of
the period of
performance
120 days after the
end of the period
of performance
9/30/2027

163 34 C.F.R., Part 75 provides ED regulations that apply to direct grant programs.
164 ED has indicated that the Tydings period only applies to programs that are subject to 34 C.F.R., Part 76, which
includes state-administered programs. The HEERF programs are direct grant programs. (Information provided in an
email to CRS from ED on May 11, 2021.)
165 See 34 C.F.R. §75.261(a). According to CRS email correspondence with ED on May 11, 2021, grantees may initiate
a second 12-month NCE by submitting a request for prior approval to ED at least 45 calendar days before the end of the
project period that justifies the need for the additional time, provides updated timelines with completion dates, lists
remaining activities to be completed, and identifies unobligated funds. (Also see 34 C.F.R. §75.261(c)).
166 31 U.S.C. §1552(a).

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service

82
Act
Period of
Availability in
Law
Period of Time
to Obligate
Funds (Period of
Performance)
No Cost
Extension
(Requires ED
Approval)
120-Day
Extension to
Liquidate
Funds
Following the
Period of
Performance
Date on
Which
Funds
Revert to
the U.S.
Treasury
ARPA
NAb
June 30, 2023c
Up to 12 months
after the end of
the period of
performance
120 days after the
end of the period
of performance
9/30/2028
Sources: Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of provisions in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security Act (CARES Act; P.L. 116-136); the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2021 (CRRSAA) included as Division M in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021
(CAA; P.L. 116-260); the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA; P.L. 117-2); 34 C.F.R., Part 75; and CRS
email correspondence with the U.S. Department of Education on May 5, 2021, and May 11, 2021.
a.
The CRRSAA required the Secretary to use direct grant funds that were not obligated under the CARES
Act as of December 27, 2020, to supplement the direct grant funds for public and private nonprofit IHEs
available under the CRRSAA. Such CARES Act funds ($317.8 million) are available for obligation and
liquidation as CRRSAA funds are.
b.
The CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA did not specify a performance period for the HEERF awards. U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education, “Notice of Automatic Extension of
Performance Period for All Open Grants Issued Under the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund
(HEERF),” 87 Federal Register 19496-19498, April 4, 2022.
c.
In April 2022, ED extended the performance period for all open HEERF grants with a balance greater than
$1,000 through June 30, 2023. Prior to the April 2022 announcement beginning in April 2020, ED
established a performance period of one calendar year (365 days) from the date of award for direct grants
to IHEs and MSI programs (U.S. Department of Education, Supplemental Frequently Asked Questions under
Section 18004 of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act [updated August 6,
2020]). By March 2021, ED required that grantees expend HEERF funds within one year of their most
recent obligation for each specific HEERF program for direct grants to IHEs and MSI programs (i.e.,
Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions) (U.S. Department of Education, Higher Education Emergency
Relief Fund (HEERF) II Public and Private Nonprofit Institution (a)(1) Programs (CFDA 84.425E and
84.425F) Frequently Asked Questions [updated March 19, 2021]). A supplemental award under a HEERF
program extends the performance period for remaining funds under the same HEERF program by one year
from the date of the supplemental award. HEERF II direct grants to proprietary IHEs do not supplement
HEERF I direct grants. FIPSE grants do not supplement other FIPSE grants.

CRS-83
Appendix C. Actual State Grants Under the Governor’s Emergency
Education Relief (GEER) Fund
Table C-1. GEER Fund State Grants Provided by the CARES Act and CRRSAA
(Dollars in thousands)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K

GEER I
GEER II
GEER Total
State
State
Grants
Share of
Funds
Available
for State
Grants
State
Grants
Share of
Funds
Available
for State
Grants
EANS
Program
Reservation
Share of
Funds
Available
for EANS
Program
GEER II
Total (Col.
D + Col. F)
Share of
GEER II
Total Funds
GEER Total
(Including
EANS; Col.
B + Col. H)
Share of
GEER Total
Funds
Alabama
$48,853
1.65%
$21,357
1.64%
$45,502
1.65%
$66,859
1.65%
$115,712
1.65%
Alaska
$6,504
0.22%
$2,824
0.22%
$5,368
0.20%
$8,192
0.20%
$14,696
0.21%
Arizona
$69,199
2.34%
$30,909
2.37%
$54,414
1.98%
$85,323
2.11%
$154,521
2.21%
Arkansas
$30,665
1.04%
$13,381
1.03%
$22,872
0.83%
$36,253
0.89%
$66,918
0.96%
California
$355,238
12.03%
$153,993
11.82%
$187,476
6.82%
$341,469
8.42%
$696,707
9.94%
Colorado
$44,006
1.49%
$19,434
1.49%
$28,434
1.03%
$47,868
1.18%
$91,874
1.31%
Connecticut
$27,882
0.94%
$12,451
0.96%
$15,832
0.58%
$28,283
0.70%
$56,165
0.80%
Delaware
$7,917
0.27%
$3,459
0.27%
$4,966
0.18%
$8,425
0.21%
$16,342
0.23%
District of
Columbia
$5,808
0.20%
$2,416
0.19%
$5,313
0.19%
$7,729
0.19%
$13,536
0.19%
Florida
$173,591
5.88%
$75,813
5.82%
$212,978
7.74%
$288,791
7.13%
$462,382
6.60%
Georgia
$105,724
3.58%
$47,084
3.61%
$79,175
2.88%
$126,259
3.12%
$231,983
3.31%
Hawaii
$9,994
0.34%
$4,456
0.34%
$9,815
0.36%
$14,272
0.35%
$24,265
0.35%
Idaho
$15,677
0.53%
$6,858
0.53%
$19,582
0.71%
$26,440
0.65%
$42,116
0.60%

CRS-84
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K

GEER I
GEER II
GEER Total
State
State
Grants
Share of
Funds
Available
for State
Grants
State
Grants
Share of
Funds
Available
for State
Grants
EANS
Program
Reservation
Share of
Funds
Available
for EANS
Program
GEER II
Total (Col.
D + Col. F)
Share of
GEER II
Total Funds
GEER Total
(Including
EANS; Col.
B + Col. H)
Share of
GEER Total
Funds
Illinois
$108,501
3.67%
$47,912
3.68%
$84,490
3.07%
$132,402
3.27%
$240,903
3.44%
Indiana
$61,593
2.09%
$26,534
2.04%
$81,656
2.97%
$108,190
2.67%
$169,783
2.42%
Iowa
$26,218
0.89%
$11,568
0.89%
$26,271
0.96%
$37,839
0.93%
$64,057
0.91%
Kansas
$26,275
0.89%
$11,679
0.90%
$26,667
0.97%
$38,346
0.95%
$64,621
0.92%
Kentucky
$43,712
1.48%
$19,100
1.47%
$40,818
1.48%
$59,918
1.48%
$103,630
1.48%
Louisiana
$50,279
1.70%
$22,991
1.76%
$55,566
2.02%
$78,557
1.94%
$128,836
1.84%
Maine
$9,274
0.31%
$4,083
0.31%
$12,751
0.46%
$16,834
0.42%
$26,108
0.37%
Maryland
$45,659
1.55%
$20,736
1.59%
$35,879
1.30%
$56,614
1.40%
$102,273
1.46%
Massachusetts
$50,845
1.72%
$22,628
1.74%
$24,225
0.88%
$46,854
1.16%
$97,698
1.39%
Michigan
$89,435
3.03%
$38,889
2.98%
$86,777
3.16%
$125,666
3.10%
$215,101
3.07%
Minnesota
$43,428
1.47%
$19,486
1.50%
$41,907
1.52%
$61,394
1.51%
$104,822
1.50%
Mississippi
$34,664
1.17%
$15,582
1.20%
$31,353
1.14%
$46,935
1.16%
$81,599
1.16%
Missouri
$54,645
1.85%
$24,145
1.85%
$67,550
2.46%
$91,696
2.26%
$146,340
2.09%
Montana
$8,765
0.30%
$3,926
0.30%
$12,816
0.47%
$16,742
0.41%
$25,507
0.36%
Nebraska
$16,358
0.55%
$7,162
0.55%
$17,272
0.63%
$24,434
0.60%
$40,792
0.58%
Nevada
$26,478
0.90%
$12,012
0.92%
$19,376
0.70%
$31,388
0.77%
$57,866
0.83%
New Hampshire
$8,892
0.30%
$3,800
0.29%
$7,069
0.26%
$10,869
0.27%
$19,761
0.28%
New Jersey
$68,867
2.33%
$29,931
2.30%
$68,750
2.50%
$98,681
2.43%
$167,547
2.39%
New Mexico
$22,263
0.75%
$9,850
0.76%
$17,282
0.63%
$27,132
0.67%
$49,396
0.71%

CRS-85
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K

GEER I
GEER II
GEER Total
State
State
Grants
Share of
Funds
Available
for State
Grants
State
Grants
Share of
Funds
Available
for State
Grants
EANS
Program
Reservation
Share of
Funds
Available
for EANS
Program
GEER II
Total (Col.
D + Col. F)
Share of
GEER II
Total Funds
GEER Total
(Including
EANS; Col.
B + Col. H)
Share of
GEER Total
Funds
New York
$164,291
5.56%
$72,774
5.58%
$250,113
9.10%
$322,887
7.97%
$487,178
6.95%
North Carolina
$95,642
3.24%
$42,929
3.29%
$84,824
3.08%
$127,753
3.15%
$223,395
3.19%
North Dakota
$5,933
0.20%
$2,733
0.21%
$3,999
0.15%
$6,731
0.17%
$12,664
0.18%
Ohio
$104,920
3.55%
$46,303
3.55%
$154,896
5.63%
$201,199
4.96%
$306,120
4.37%
Oklahoma
$39,921
1.35%
$17,713
1.36%
$30,986
1.13%
$48,699
1.20%
$88,620
1.26%
Oregon
$32,509
1.10%
$14,174
1.09%
$27,595
1.00%
$41,770
1.03%
$74,279
1.06%
Pennsylvania
$104,421
3.54%
$47,083
3.61%
$150,022
5.46%
$197,105
4.86%
$301,527
4.30%
Puerto Rico
$47,815
1.62%
$21,836
1.68%
$104,161
3.79%
$125,997
3.11%
$173,812
2.48%
Rhode Island
$8,704
0.29%
$3,805
0.29%
$7,149
0.26%
$10,954
0.27%
$19,658
0.28%
South Carolina
$48,470
1.64%
$21,093
1.62%
$39,981
1.45%
$61,075
1.51%
$109,544
1.56%
South Dakota
$7,944
0.27%
$3,504
0.27%
$7,773
0.28%
$11,277
0.28%
$19,221
0.27%
Tennessee
$63,584
2.15%
$27,808
2.13%
$72,838
2.65%
$100,646
2.48%
$164,230
2.34%
Texas
$307,036
10.40%
$134,357
10.31%
$153,168
5.57%
$287,526
7.09%
$594,562
8.49%
Utah
$29,190
0.99%
$13,202
1.01%
$23,978
0.87%
$37,180
0.92%
$66,370
0.95%
Vermont
$4,489
0.15%
$1,931
0.15%
$4,284
0.16%
$6,215
0.15%
$10,704
0.15%
Virginia
$66,777
2.26%
$29,971
2.30%
$46,618
1.70%
$76,589
1.89%
$143,366
2.05%
Washington
$56,771
1.92%
$25,456
1.95%
$46,263
1.68%
$71,719
1.77%
$128,490
1.83%
West Virginia
$16,354
0.55%
$7,060
0.54%
$9,052
0.33%
$16,113
0.40%
$32,467
0.46%
Wisconsin
$46,552
1.58%
$20,836
1.60%
$77,492
2.82%
$98,328
2.43%
$144,880
2.07%

CRS-86
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K

CRS-87
Appendix D. Actual State Grants Under the Emergency Assistance for
Non-Public Schools (EANS) Program
Table D-1. EANS Program State Grants Provided by the CRSSAA and ARPA
(Dollars in thousands)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I

EANS I
EANS II
EANS Total
State
State
Grants
(reservation
from
GEER II)
Share of
State
Funds
Maximum
State
Reservation for
Administration
State
Grants
Share of
State
Funds
Maximum
State
Reservation for
Administration
State
Grants
(Col. B +
Col. E)
Share of
State Funds
Alabama
$45,502
1.65%
$228
$44,896
1.63%
$224
$90,398
1.64%
Alaska
$5,368
0.20%
$200
$5,882
0.21%
$200
$11,250
0.20%
Arizona
$54,414
1.98%
$272
$54,445
1.98%
$272
$108,858
1.98%
Arkansas
$22,872
0.83%
$200
$22,903
0.83%
$200
$45,776
0.83%
California
$187,476
6.82%
$937
$181,312
6.59%
$907
$368,788
6.71%
Colorado
$28,434
1.03%
$200
$28,710
1.04%
$200
$57,144
1.04%
Connecticut
$15,832
0.58%
$200
$15,957
0.58%
$200
$31,789
0.58%
Delaware
$4,966
0.18%
$200
$3,889
0.14%
$200
$8,855
0.16%
District of Columbia
$5,313
0.19%
$200
$4,534
0.16%
$200
$9,847
0.18%
Florida
$212,978
7.74%
$1,065
$221,189
8.04%
$1,106
$434,167
7.89%
Georgia
$79,175
2.88%
$396
$75,408
2.74%
$377
$154,583
2.81%
Hawaii
$9,815
0.36%
$200
$10,365
0.38%
$200
$20,180
0.37%
Idaho
$19,582
0.71%
$200
$21,962
0.80%
$200
$41,544
0.76%
Illinois
$84,490
3.07%
$422
$83,246
3.03%
$416
$167,736
3.05%

CRS-88
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I

EANS I
EANS II
EANS Total
State
State
Grants
(reservation
from
GEER II)
Share of
State
Funds
Maximum
State
Reservation for
Administration
State
Grants
Share of
State
Funds
Maximum
State
Reservation for
Administration
State
Grants
(Col. B +
Col. E)
Share of
State Funds
Indiana
$81,656
2.97%
$408
$78,874
2.87%
$394
$160,530
2.92%
Iowa
$26,271
0.96%
$200
$23,744
0.86%
$200
$50,015
0.91%
Kansas
$26,667
0.97%
$200
$25,070
0.91%
$200
$51,737
0.94%
Kentucky
$40,818
1.48%
$204
$42,666
1.55%
$213
$83,483
1.52%
Louisiana
$55,566
2.02%
$278
$55,674
2.02%
$278
$111,240
2.02%
Maine
$12,751
0.46%
$200
$12,327
0.45%
$200
$25,078
0.46%
Maryland
$35,879
1.30%
$200
$39,249
1.43%
$200
$75,127
1.37%
Massachusetts
$24,225
0.88%
$200
$24,826
0.90%
$200
$49,051
0.89%
Michigan
$86,777
3.16%
$434
$86,894
3.16%
$434
$173,671
3.16%
Minnesota
$41,907
1.52%
$210
$40,489
1.47%
$202
$82,396
1.50%
Mississippi
$31,353
1.14%
$200
$30,461
1.11%
$200
$61,815
1.12%
Missouri
$67,550
2.46%
$338
$68,642
2.50%
$343
$136,192
2.48%
Montana
$12,816
0.47%
$200
$12,063
0.44%
$200
$24,880
0.45%
Nebraska
$17,272
0.63%
$200
$18,619
0.68%
$200
$35,891
0.65%
Nevada
$19,376
0.70%
$200
$18,181
0.66%
$200
$37,556
0.68%
New Hampshire
$7,069
0.26%
$200
$6,699
0.24%
$200
$13,768
0.25%
New Jersey
$68,750
2.50%
$344
$70,948
2.58%
$355
$139,698
2.54%
New Mexico
$17,282
0.63%
$200
$17,426
0.63%
$200
$34,708
0.63%
New York
$250,113
9.10%
$1,251
$252,458
9.18%
$1,262
$502,572
9.14%

CRS-89
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I

EANS I
EANS II
EANS Total
State
State
Grants
(reservation
from
GEER II)
Share of
State
Funds
Maximum
State
Reservation for
Administration
State
Grants
Share of
State
Funds
Maximum
State
Reservation for
Administration
State
Grants
(Col. B +
Col. E)
Share of
State Funds
North Carolina
$84,824
3.08%
$424
$82,952
3.02%
$415
$167,776
3.05%
North Dakota
$3,999
0.15%
$200
$4,151
0.15%
$200
$8,150
0.15%
Ohio
$154,896
5.63%
$774
$155,190
5.64%
$776
$310,087
5.64%
Oklahoma
$30,986
1.13%
$200
$31,482
1.14%
$200
$62,468
1.14%
Oregon
$27,595
1.00%
$200
$28,356
1.03%
$200
$55,951
1.02%
Pennsylvania
$150,022
5.46%
$750
$152,741
5.55%
$764
$302,764
5.50%
Puerto Rico
$104,161
3.79%
$521
$104,193
3.79%
$521
$208,355
3.79%
Rhode Island
$7,149
0.26%
$200
$6,210
0.23%
$200
$13,358
0.24%
South Carolina
$39,981
1.45%
$200
$40,560
1.47%
$203
$80,542
1.46%
South Dakota
$7,773
0.28%
$200
$7,609
0.28%
$200
$15,382
0.28%
Tennessee
$72,838
2.65%
$364
$73,683
2.68%
$368
$146,522
2.66%
Texas
$153,168
5.57%
$766
$152,146
5.53%
$761
$305,314
5.55%
Utah
$23,978
0.87%
$200
$26,428
0.96%
$200
$50,407
0.92%
Vermont
$4,284
0.16%
$200
$3,877
0.14%
$200
$8,162
0.15%
Virginia
$46,618
1.70%
$233
$46,344
1.69%
$232
$92,962
1.69%
Washington
$46,263
1.68%
$231
$45,745
1.66%
$229
$92,008
1.67%
West Virginia
$9,052
0.33%
$200
$9,764
0.36%
$200
$18,816
0.34%
Wisconsin
$77,492
2.82%
$387
$73,876
2.69%
$369
$151,368
2.75%
Wyoming
$4,603
0.17%
$200
$4,683
0.17%
$200
$9,286
0.17%

CRS-90
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I

EANS I
EANS II
EANS Total
State
State
Grants
(reservation
from
GEER II)
Share of
State
Funds
Maximum
State
Reservation for
Administration
State
Grants
Share of
State
Funds
Maximum
State
Reservation for
Administration
State
Grants
(Col. B +
Col. E)
Share of
State Funds
Total
$2,750,000
100.00%
$17,037
$2,750,000
100.00%
$17,023
$5,500,000
100.00%
Sources: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data available from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) at https://oese.ed.gov/files/
2021/06/FINAL_GEERII_EANS-Methodology_Table_Revised_6.25.21.pdf (GEER II, which included a reservation of funds for the EANS I), and https://oese.ed.gov/files/
2021/04/Final_ARP-EANS-Methodology-and-Table-3.16.21.pdf (EANS II).
Notes: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Percentages were calculated based on unrounded numbers. An SEA may reserve not more than the greater of
$200,000 or 0.5% of the EANS grant to administer the services and assistance provided under the EANS program to nonpublic schools.

CRS-91
Appendix E. Actual State Grants Under the Elementary and Secondary
Schools Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund
Table E-1. State Grants Under the ESSER Fund Provided by the CARES Act (ESSER I)
(Dollars in thousands)
A
B
C
D
E
F
State
State Grant
Share of State Funds
Maximum
Reservation for State
Activities
(9.5% of Col. B)a
Maximum
Reservation for
Administration
(0.5% of Col. B)a
Minimum Reservation
for LEAs
(90% of Col. B)
Alabama
$216,948
1.64%
$20,610
$1,085
$195,253
Alaska
$38,408
0.29%
$3,649
$192
$34,567
Arizona
$277,423
2.10%
$26,355
$1,387
$249,681
Arkansas
$128,759
0.97%
$12,232
$644
$115,883
California
$1,647,306
12.45%
$156,494
$8,237
$1,482,576
Colorado
$120,994
0.91%
$11,494
$605
$108,894
Connecticut
$111,068
0.84%
$10,551
$555
$99,961
Delaware
$43,493
0.33%
$4,132
$217
$39,143
District of Columbia
$42,006
0.32%
$3,991
$210
$37,806
Florida
$770,248
5.82%
$73,174
$3,851
$693,223
Georgia
$457,170
3.46%
$43,431
$2,286
$411,453
Hawaii
$43,385
0.33%
$4,122
$217
$39,047
Idaho
$47,855
0.36%
$4,546
$239
$43,069
Illinois
$569,467
4.30%
$54,099
$2,847
$512,520
Indiana
$214,473
1.62%
$20,375
$1,072
$193,025
Iowa
$71,626
0.54%
$6,804
$358
$64,463

CRS-92
A
B
C
D
E
F
State
State Grant
Share of State Funds
Maximum
Reservation for State
Activities
(9.5% of Col. B)a
Maximum
Reservation for
Administration
(0.5% of Col. B)a
Minimum Reservation
for LEAs
(90% of Col. B)
Kansas
$84,529
0.64%
$8,030
$423
$76,076
Kentucky
$193,187
1.46%
$18,353
$966
$173,868
Louisiana
$286,980
2.17%
$27,263
$1,435
$258,282
Maine
$43,793
0.33%
$4,160
$219
$39,414
Maryland
$207,834
1.57%
$19,744
$1,039
$187,051
Massachusetts
$214,894
1.62%
$20,415
$1,074
$193,405
Michigan
$389,797
2.95%
$37,031
$1,949
$350,817
Minnesota
$140,137
1.06%
$13,313
$701
$126,124
Mississippi
$169,883
1.28%
$16,139
$849
$152,895
Missouri
$208,443
1.58%
$19,802
$1,042
$187,599
Montana
$41,295
0.31%
$3,923
$206
$37,166
Nebraska
$65,085
0.49%
$6,183
$325
$58,577
Nevada
$117,185
0.89%
$11,133
$586
$105,467
New Hampshire
$37,641
0.28%
$3,576
$188
$33,877
New Jersey
$310,371
2.35%
$29,485
$1,552
$279,334
New Mexico
$108,575
0.82%
$10,315
$543
$97,717
New York
$1,037,046
7.84%
$98,519
$5,185
$933,341
North Carolina
$396,312
3.00%
$37,650
$1,982
$356,680
North Dakota
$33,298
0.25%
$3,163
$166
$29,968
Ohio
$489,205
3.70%
$46,474
$2,446
$440,285
Oklahoma
$160,950
1.22%
$15,290
$805
$144,855

CRS-93
A
B
C
D
E
F
State
State Grant
Share of State Funds
Maximum
Reservation for State
Activities
(9.5% of Col. B)a
Maximum
Reservation for
Administration
(0.5% of Col. B)a
Minimum Reservation
for LEAs
(90% of Col. B)
Oregon
$121,099
0.92%
$11,504
$605
$108,989
Pennsylvania
$523,807
3.96%
$49,762
$2,619
$471,426
Puerto Rico
$349,113
2.64%
$33,166
$1,746
$314,202
Rhode Island
$46,350
0.35%
$4,403
$232
$41,715
South Carolina
$216,311
1.64%
$20,550
$1,082
$194,680
South Dakota
$41,295
0.31%
$3,923
$206
$37,166
Tennessee
$259,891
1.96%
$24,690
$1,299
$233,902
Texas
$1,285,886
9.72%
$122,159
$6,429
$1,157,297
Utah
$67,822
0.51%
$6,443
$339
$61,040
Vermont
$31,148
0.24%
$2,959
$156
$28,034
Virginia
$238,599
1.80%
$22,667
$1,193
$214,739
Washington
$216,892
1.64%
$20,605
$1,084
$195,203
West Virginia
$86,640
0.65%
$8,231
$433
$77,976
Wisconsin
$174,778
1.32%
$16,604
$874
$157,300
Wyoming
$32,563
0.25%
$3,093
$163
$29,306
Total
$13,229,265
100.00%
$1,256,780
$66,146
$11,906,339
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data available from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) at https://oese.ed.gov/files/
2020/04/ESSER-Fund-State-Allocations-Table.pdf.
Notes: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Percentages were calculated based on unrounded numbers.
a.
It was assumed that SEAs would reserve the full 0.5% for administration, which would leave a maximum of 9.5% for other state activities. Any funds not used for
administration could be used for other state activities.

CRS-94
Table E-2. State Grants Under the ESSER Fund Provided by the CRRSAA (ESSER II)
(Dollars in thousands)
A
B
C
D
E
F
State
State Grant
Share of State Funds
Maximum
Reservation for State
Activities
(9.5% of Col. B)a
Maximum
Reservation for
Administration
(0.5% of Col. B)a
Minimum Reservation
for LEAs
(90% of Col. B)
Alabama
$899,465
1.66%
$85,449
$4,497
$809,518
Alaska
$159,719
0.29%
$15,173
$799
$143,747
Arizona
$1,149,716
2.12%
$109,223
$5,749
$1,034,744
Arkansas
$558,017
1.03%
$53,012
$2,790
$502,216
California
$6,709,634
12.35%
$637,415
$33,548
$6,038,670
Colorado
$519,324
0.96%
$49,336
$2,597
$467,392
Connecticut
$492,426
0.91%
$46,781
$2,462
$443,184
Delaware
$182,885
0.34%
$17,374
$914
$164,597
District of Columbia
$172,013
0.32%
$16,341
$860
$154,812
Florida
$3,133,879
5.77%
$297,718
$15,669
$2,820,491
Georgia
$1,892,093
3.48%
$179,749
$9,460
$1,702,883
Hawaii
$183,595
0.34%
$17,442
$918
$165,236
Idaho
$195,890
0.36%
$18,610
$979
$176,301
Illinois
$2,250,805
4.14%
$213,826
$11,254
$2,025,724
Indiana
$888,184
1.64%
$84,377
$4,441
$799,365
Iowa
$344,864
0.63%
$32,762
$1,724
$310,378
Kansas
$369,830
0.68%
$35,134
$1,849
$332,847
Kentucky
$928,275
1.71%
$88,186
$4,641
$835,447
Louisiana
$1,160,119
2.14%
$110,211
$5,801
$1,044,107

CRS-95
A
B
C
D
E
F
State
State Grant
Share of State Funds
Maximum
Reservation for State
Activities
(9.5% of Col. B)a
Maximum
Reservation for
Administration
(0.5% of Col. B)a
Minimum Reservation
for LEAs
(90% of Col. B)
Maine
$183,139
0.34%
$17,398
$916
$164,825
Maryland
$868,771
1.60%
$82,533
$4,344
$781,894
Massachusetts
$814,890
1.50%
$77,415
$4,074
$733,401
Michigan
$1,656,308
3.05%
$157,349
$8,282
$1,490,677
Minnesota
$588,036
1.08%
$55,863
$2,940
$529,233
Mississippi
$724,533
1.33%
$68,831
$3,623
$652,080
Missouri
$871,172
1.60%
$82,761
$4,356
$784,055
Montana
$170,099
0.31%
$16,159
$850
$153,090
Nebraska
$243,074
0.45%
$23,092
$1,215
$218,766
Nevada
$477,322
0.88%
$45,346
$2,387
$429,590
New Hampshire
$156,066
0.29%
$14,826
$780
$140,459
New Jersey
$1,230,972
2.27%
$116,942
$6,155
$1,107,875
New Mexico
$435,939
0.80%
$41,414
$2,180
$392,345
New York
$4,002,382
7.37%
$380,226
$20,012
$3,602,144
North Carolina
$1,602,591
2.95%
$152,246
$8,013
$1,442,332
North Dakota
$135,924
0.25%
$12,913
$680
$122,332
Ohio
$1,991,251
3.67%
$189,169
$9,956
$1,792,126
Oklahoma
$665,039
1.22%
$63,179
$3,325
$598,535
Oregon
$499,154
0.92%
$47,420
$2,496
$449,239
Pennsylvania
$2,224,964
4.10%
$211,372
$11,125
$2,002,468
Puerto Rico
$1,320,626
2.43%
$125,459
$6,603
$1,188,564

CRS-96
A
B
C
D
E
F
State
State Grant
Share of State Funds
Maximum
Reservation for State
Activities
(9.5% of Col. B)a
Maximum
Reservation for
Administration
(0.5% of Col. B)a
Minimum Reservation
for LEAs
(90% of Col. B)
Rhode Island
$184,792
0.34%
$17,555
$924
$166,312
South Carolina
$940,421
1.73%
$89,340
$4,702
$846,379
South Dakota
$170,099
0.31%
$16,159
$850
$153,090
Tennessee
$1,107,656
2.04%
$105,227
$5,538
$996,890
Texas
$5,529,552
10.18%
$525,307
$27,648
$4,976,597
Utah
$274,072
0.50%
$26,037
$1,370
$246,665
Vermont
$126,973
0.23%
$12,062
$635
$114,276
Virginia
$939,281
1.73%
$89,232
$4,696
$845,353
Washington
$824,852
1.52%
$78,361
$4,124
$742,367
West Virginia
$339,032
0.62%
$32,208
$1,695
$305,129
Wisconsin
$686,056
1.26%
$65,175
$3,430
$617,451
Wyoming
$135,231
0.25%
$12,847
$676
$121,708
Total
$54,311,004
100.00%
$5,159,545
$271,555
$48,879,904
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data available from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) at https://oese.ed.gov/files/
2021/01/Final_ESSERII_Methodology_Table_1.5.21.pdf.
Notes: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Percentages were calculated based on unrounded numbers.
a.
It was assumed that SEAs would reserve the full 0.5% for administration, which would leave a maximum of 9.5% for other state activities. Any funds not used for
administration could be used for other state activities.

CRS-97
Table E-3. State Grants Under the ESSER Fund Provided by the ARPA (ESSER III)
(Dollars in thousands)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
State
State Grant
Share of
State
Funds
Minimum
State
Reservation
for Learning
Loss
(5% of Col. B)
Minimum
State
Reservation
for Summer
Activities
(1% of Col. B)
Minimum
State
Reservation
for
Afterschool
Activities
(1% of Col. B)
Maximum
Reservation
for State
Activities
(2.5% of
Col. B)a
Maximum
Reservation for
State
Administration
(0.5% of
Col. B)a
Minimum
Reservation
for LEA
Grants
(90% of
Col. B)
Minimum LEA
Reservation
for Learning
Loss
(20% of Col. I)
Alabama
$2,021,519
1.66%
$101,076
$20,215
$20,215
$50,538
$10,108
$1,819,367
$363,873
Alaska
$358,771
0.29%
$17,939
$3,588
$3,588
$8,969
$1,794
$322,894
$64,579
Arizona
$2,583,944
2.12%
$129,197
$25,839
$25,839
$64,599
$12,920
$2,325,549
$465,110
Arkansas
$1,254,120
1.03%
$62,706
$12,541
$12,541
$31,353
$6,271
$1,128,708
$225,742
California
$15,079,696
12.36%
$753,985
$150,797
$150,797
$376,992
$75,398
$13,571,726
$2,714,345
Colorado
$1,167,154
0.96%
$58,358
$11,672
$11,672
$29,179
$5,836
$1,050,439
$210,088
Connecticut
$1,106,697
0.91%
$55,335
$11,067
$11,067
$27,667
$5,533
$996,027
$199,205
Delaware
$410,861
0.34%
$20,543
$4,109
$4,109
$10,272
$2,054
$369,775
$73,955
District of
Columbia
$386,477
0.32%
$19,324
$3,865
$3,865
$9,662
$1,932
$347,829
$69,566
Florida
$7,043,370
5.77%
$352,169
$70,434
$70,434
$176,084
$35,217
$6,339,033
$1,267,807
Georgia
$4,252,432
3.49%
$212,622
$42,524
$42,524
$106,311
$21,262
$3,827,189
$765,438
Hawaii
$412,530
0.34%
$20,627
$4,125
$4,125
$10,313
$2,063
$371,277
$74,255
Idaho
$440,132
0.36%
$22,007
$4,401
$4,401
$11,003
$2,201
$396,119
$79,224
Illinois
$5,058,602
4.15%
$252,930
$50,586
$50,586
$126,465
$25,293
$4,552,742
$910,548
Indiana
$1,996,145
1.64%
$99,807
$19,961
$19,961
$49,904
$9,981
$1,796,531
$359,306
Iowa
$775,053
0.64%
$38,753
$7,751
$7,751
$19,376
$3,875
$697,548
$139,510
Kansas
$831,171
0.68%
$41,559
$8,312
$8,312
$20,779
$4,156
$748,053
$149,611

CRS-98
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
State
State Grant
Share of
State
Funds
Minimum
State
Reservation
for Learning
Loss
(5% of Col. B)
Minimum
State
Reservation
for Summer
Activities
(1% of Col. B)
Minimum
State
Reservation
for
Afterschool
Activities
(1% of Col. B)
Maximum
Reservation
for State
Activities
(2.5% of
Col. B)a
Maximum
Reservation for
State
Administration
(0.5% of
Col. B)a
Minimum
Reservation
for LEA
Grants
(90% of
Col. B)
Minimum LEA
Reservation
for Learning
Loss
(20% of Col. I)
Kentucky
$2,001,217
1.64%
$100,061
$20,012
$20,012
$50,030
$10,006
$1,801,095
$360,219
Louisiana
$2,607,344
2.14%
$130,367
$26,073
$26,073
$65,184
$13,037
$2,346,610
$469,322
Maine
$411,429
0.34%
$20,571
$4,114
$4,114
$10,286
$2,057
$370,286
$74,057
Maryland
$1,952,539
1.60%
$97,627
$19,525
$19,525
$48,813
$9,763
$1,757,285
$351,457
Massachusetts
$1,831,417
1.50%
$91,571
$18,314
$18,314
$45,785
$9,157
$1,648,275
$329,655
Michigan
$3,722,478
3.05%
$186,124
$37,225
$37,225
$93,062
$18,612
$3,350,230
$670,046
Minnesota
$1,321,564
1.08%
$66,078
$13,216
$13,216
$33,039
$6,608
$1,189,408
$237,882
Mississippi
$1,628,366
1.34%
$81,418
$16,284
$16,284
$40,709
$8,142
$1,465,530
$293,106
Missouri
$1,957,916
1.61%
$97,896
$19,579
$19,579
$48,948
$9,790
$1,762,125
$352,425
Montana
$382,019
0.31%
$19,101
$3,820
$3,820
$9,550
$1,910
$343,817
$68,763
Nebraska
$546,290
0.45%
$27,315
$5,463
$5,463
$13,657
$2,731
$491,661
$98,332
Nevada
$1,072,783
0.88%
$53,639
$10,728
$10,728
$26,820
$5,364
$965,505
$193,101
New
Hampshire
$350,561
0.29%
$17,528
$3,506
$3,506
$8,764
$1,753
$315,505
$63,101
New Jersey
$2,766,530
2.27%
$138,326
$27,665
$27,665
$69,163
$13,833
$2,489,877
$497,975
New Mexico
$979,762
0.80%
$48,988
$9,798
$9,798
$24,494
$4,899
$881,786
$176,357
New York
$8,995,282
7.37%
$449,764
$89,953
$89,953
$224,882
$44,976
$8,095,754
$1,619,151
North
Carolina
$3,601,780
2.95%
$180,089
$36,018
$36,018
$90,045
$18,009
$3,241,602
$648,320
North Dakota
$305,338
0.25%
$15,267
$3,053
$3,053
$7,633
$1,527
$274,804
$54,961

CRS-99
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
State
State Grant
Share of
State
Funds
Minimum
State
Reservation
for Learning
Loss
(5% of Col. B)
Minimum
State
Reservation
for Summer
Activities
(1% of Col. B)
Minimum
State
Reservation
for
Afterschool
Activities
(1% of Col. B)
Maximum
Reservation
for State
Activities
(2.5% of
Col. B)a
Maximum
Reservation for
State
Administration
(0.5% of
Col. B)a
Minimum
Reservation
for LEA
Grants
(90% of
Col. B)
Minimum LEA
Reservation
for Learning
Loss
(20% of Col. I)
Ohio
$4,475,244
3.67%
$223,762
$44,752
$44,752
$111,881
$22,376
$4,027,719
$805,544
Oklahoma
$1,494,647
1.23%
$74,732
$14,946
$14,946
$37,366
$7,473
$1,345,182
$269,036
Oregon
$1,121,815
0.92%
$56,091
$11,218
$11,218
$28,045
$5,609
$1,009,633
$201,927
Pennsylvania
$5,000,509
4.10%
$250,025
$50,005
$50,005
$125,013
$25,003
$4,500,458
$900,092
Puerto Rico
$2,968,079
2.43%
$148,404
$29,681
$29,681
$74,202
$14,840
$2,671,271
$534,254
Rhode Island
$415,146
0.34%
$20,757
$4,151
$4,151
$10,379
$2,076
$373,631
$74,726
South Carolina
$2,113,568
1.73%
$105,678
$21,136
$21,136
$52,839
$10,568
$1,902,211
$380,442
South Dakota
$382,019
0.31%
$19,101
$3,820
$3,820
$9,550
$1,910
$343,817
$68,763
Tennessee
$2,489,423
2.04%
$124,471
$24,894
$24,894
$62,236
$12,447
$2,240,481
$448,096
Texas
$12,427,523
10.19%
$621,376
$124,275
$124,275
$310,688
$62,138
$11,184,771
$2,236,954
Utah
$615,929
0.50%
$30,796
$6,159
$6,159
$15,398
$3,080
$554,336
$110,867
Vermont
$285,223
0.23%
$14,261
$2,852
$2,852
$7,131
$1,426
$256,701
$51,340
Virginia
$2,110,989
1.73%
$105,549
$21,110
$21,110
$52,775
$10,555
$1,899,890
$379,978
Washington
$1,853,788
1.52%
$92,689
$18,538
$18,538
$46,345
$9,269
$1,668,409
$333,682
West Virginia
$761,960
0.62%
$38,098
$7,620
$7,620
$19,049
$3,810
$685,764
$137,153
Wisconsin
$1,541,867
1.26%
$77,093
$15,419
$15,419
$38,547
$7,709
$1,387,681
$277,536
Wyoming
$303,779
0.25%
$15,189
$3,038
$3,038
$7,594
$1,519
$273,401
$54,680
Total
$121,974,800
100.00%
$6,098,740
$1,219,748
$1,219,748
$3,049,370
$609,874
$109,777,320
$21,955,464
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data available from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) at https://oese.ed.gov/files/
2021/06/Revised-ARP-ESSER-Methodology-and-Allocation-Table_6.25.21_FINAL.pdf.

CRS-100
Notes: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Percentages were calculated based on unrounded numbers. As discussed in the source above, the ESSER state
grant amounts were revised as of June 25, 2021, due to changes in the underlying data used to calculate ESSER Fund state grants. While the change in the underlying data
affected ESSER state grants under the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA, all of the needed adjustments in state grant amounts were made to the ESSER state grants
funded by the ARPA. This table provides the revised state grant amounts. The $800 million reservation for homeless education was not included in the table. The total
appropriation for ESSER III including the $800 million reservation is $122,774,800,000.
a.
It was assumed that SEAs would reserve the full 0.5% for administration, which would leave a maximum of 2.5% for other state activities. Any funds not used for
administration could be used for other state activities.
Table E-4. State Grants Under the ESSER Fund Provided by the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA
(Dollars in thousands)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J

CRS-101
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J

CARES Act
CRRSAA
ARPA
CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA
State
ESSER I State
Grants
Share of
State
Funds
ESSER II
State Grants
Share of State
Funds
ESSER III
State Grants
Share of
State Funds
Total ESSER
State Grants
Share of State
Funds
Minimum
Reservation of
Funds for
Grants to LEAs
(90% of Col. H)
Idaho
$47,855
0.36%
$195,890
0.36%
$440,132
0.36%
$683,877
0.36%
$615,489
Illinois
$569,467
4.30%
$2,250,805
4.14%
$5,058,602
4.15%
$7,878,874
4.16%
$7,090,987
Indiana
$214,473
1.62%
$888,184
1.64%
$1,996,145
1.64%
$3,098,801
1.64%
$2,788,921
Iowa
$71,626
0.54%
$344,864
0.63%
$775,053
0.64%
$1,191,543
0.63%
$1,072,389
Kansas
$84,529
0.64%
$369,830
0.68%
$831,171
0.68%
$1,285,529
0.68%
$1,156,976
Kentucky
$193,187
1.46%
$928,275
1.71%
$2,001,217
1.64%
$3,122,679
1.65%
$2,810,411
Louisiana
$286,980
2.17%
$1,160,119
2.14%
$2,607,344
2.14%
$4,054,444
2.14%
$3,648,999
Maine
$43,793
0.33%
$183,139
0.34%
$411,429
0.34%
$638,361
0.34%
$574,525
Maryland
$207,834
1.57%
$868,771
1.60%
$1,952,539
1.60%
$3,029,144
1.60%
$2,726,230
Massachusetts
$214,894
1.62%
$814,890
1.50%
$1,831,417
1.50%
$2,861,202
1.51%
$2,575,082
Michigan
$389,797
2.95%
$1,656,308
3.05%
$3,722,478
3.05%
$5,768,584
3.04%
$5,191,725
Minnesota
$140,137
1.06%
$588,036
1.08%
$1,321,564
1.08%
$2,049,738
1.08%
$1,844,764
Mississippi
$169,883
1.28%
$724,533
1.33%
$1,628,366
1.34%
$2,522,782
1.33%
$2,270,504
Missouri
$208,443
1.58%
$871,172
1.60%
$1,957,916
1.61%
$3,037,532
1.60%
$2,733,779
Montana
$41,295
0.31%
$170,099
0.31%
$382,019
0.31%
$593,414
0.31%
$534,073
Nebraska
$65,085
0.49%
$243,074
0.45%
$546,290
0.45%
$854,449
0.45%
$769,004
Nevada
$117,185
0.89%
$477,322
0.88%
$1,072,783
0.88%
$1,667,291
0.88%
$1,500,562
New
Hampshire
$37,641
0.28%
$156,066
0.29%
$350,561
0.29%
$544,268
0.29%
$489,842
New Jersey
$310,371
2.35%
$1,230,972
2.27%
$2,766,530
2.27%
$4,307,873
2.27%
$3,877,085

CRS-102
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J

CARES Act
CRRSAA
ARPA
CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA
State
ESSER I State
Grants
Share of
State
Funds
ESSER II
State Grants
Share of State
Funds
ESSER III
State Grants
Share of
State Funds
Total ESSER
State Grants
Share of State
Funds
Minimum
Reservation of
Funds for
Grants to LEAs
(90% of Col. H)
New Mexico
$108,575
0.82%
$435,939
0.80%
$979,762
0.80%
$1,524,275
0.80%
$1,371,848
New York
$1,037,046
7.84%
$4,002,382
7.37%
$8,995,282
7.37%
$14,034,710
7.41%
$12,631,239
North
Carolina
$396,312
3.00%
$1,602,591
2.95%
$3,601,780
2.95%
$5,600,683
2.96%
$5,040,615
North Dakota
$33,298
0.25%
$135,924
0.25%
$305,338
0.25%
$474,560
0.25%
$427,104
Ohio
$489,205
3.70%
$1,991,251
3.67%
$4,475,244
3.67%
$6,955,700
3.67%
$6,260,130
Oklahoma
$160,950
1.22%
$665,039
1.22%
$1,494,647
1.23%
$2,320,636
1.22%
$2,088,573
Oregon
$121,099
0.92%
$499,154
0.92%
$1,121,815
0.92%
$1,742,068
0.92%
$1,567,861
Pennsylvania
$523,807
3.96%
$2,224,964
4.10%
$5,000,509
4.10%
$7,749,281
4.09%
$6,974,353
Puerto Rico
$349,113
2.64%
$1,320,626
2.43%
$2,968,079
2.43%
$4,637,818
2.45%
$4,174,037
Rhode Island
$46,350
0.35%
$184,792
0.34%
$415,146
0.34%
$646,288
0.34%
$581,659
South Carolina
$216,311
1.64%
$940,421
1.73%
$2,113,568
1.73%
$3,270,299
1.73%
$2,943,270
South Dakota
$41,295
0.31%
$170,099
0.31%
$382,019
0.31%
$593,414
0.31%
$534,073
Tennessee
$259,891
1.96%
$1,107,656
2.04%
$2,489,423
2.04%
$3,856,971
2.04%
$3,471,274
Texas
$1,285,886
9.72%
$5,529,552
10.18%
$12,427,523
10.19%
$19,242,962
10.15%
$17,318,665
Utah
$67,822
0.51%
$274,072
0.50%
$615,929
0.50%
$957,822
0.51%
$862,040
Vermont
$31,148
0.24%
$126,973
0.23%
$285,223
0.23%
$443,345
0.23%
$399,011
Virginia
$238,599
1.80%
$939,281
1.73%
$2,110,989
1.73%
$3,288,869
1.74%
$2,959,982
Washington
$216,892
1.64%
$824,852
1.52%
$1,853,788
1.52%
$2,895,533
1.53%
$2,605,979
West Virginia
$86,640
0.65%
$339,032
0.62%
$761,960
0.62%
$1,187,633
0.63%
$1,068,869

CRS-103
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J

CARES Act
CRRSAA
ARPA
CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA
State
ESSER I State
Grants
Share of
State
Funds
ESSER II
State Grants
Share of State
Funds
ESSER III
State Grants
Share of
State Funds
Total ESSER
State Grants
Share of State
Funds
Minimum
Reservation of
Funds for
Grants to LEAs
(90% of Col. H)
Wisconsin
$174,778
1.32%
$686,056
1.26%
$1,541,867
1.26%
$2,402,701
1.27%
$2,162,431
Wyoming
$32,563
0.25%
$135,231
0.25%
$303,779
0.25%
$471,573
0.25%
$424,416
Total
$13,229,265
100.00%
$54,311,004
100.00%
$121,974,800
100.00%
$189,515,069
100.00%
$170,563,562
Sources: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data available from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) at https://oese.ed.gov/files/
2020/04/ESSER-Fund-State-Allocations-Table.pdf, https://oese.ed.gov/files/2021/01/Final_ESSERII_Methodology_Table_1.5.21.pdf, and https://oese.ed.gov/files/2021/06/
Revised-ARP-ESSER-Methodology-and-Allocation-Table_6.25.21_FINAL.pdf.
Notes: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Percentages were calculated based on unrounded numbers. As discussed in the last-listed source document, the
ESSER state grant amounts were revised as of June 25, 2021, due to changes in the underlying data used to calculate ESSER Fund state grants. While the change in the
underlying data affected ESSER state grants under the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA, all of the needed adjustments in state grant amounts were made to the ESSER
state grants authorized by the ARPA. This table provides the revised state grant amounts. The $800 million reservation from ESSER III for homeless education was not
included in the table. The total appropriation for ESSER III including the $800 million reservation is $122,774,800,000.

CRS-104
Appendix F. Estimated HEERF IHE Allocations Aggregated at the
Institutional Sector and State Levels for the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and
ARPA ESF

Table F-1. Estimated Allocations to IHEs Under the HEERF Provided by the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA, Aggregated at
the Institutional Sector Level
(Dollars in thousands)

Institutional Sector

Public
Private Nonprofit
Proprietary

Act/
Program
Less-
than-2-
Year
2-Year
4-Year
Less-
than-2-
Year
2-Year
4-Year
Less-
than-2-
Year
2-Year
4-Year
Additional
Fundinga
Total
CARES Act
Direct Grants
$39,531
$2,607,919
$6,257,087
$10,986
$32,909
$2,464,951
$317,830
$408,170
$367,871
$50,000
$12,557,255
MSI Programs
$0
$194,890
$663,300
$0
$4,810
$183,438
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,046,438
FIPSE
$72,906
$79,499
$45,492
$12,648
$32,817
$189,786
$0
$0
$0
$0
$433,147
Subtotal
$112,437
$2,882,308
$6,965,879
$23,633
$70,536
$2,838,175
$317,830
$408,170
$367,871
$50,000
$14,036,839
Share of
HEERF I Funds
0.80%
20.53%
49.63%
0.17%
0.50%
20.22%
2.26%
2.91%
2.62%
0.36%
100.00%
CRRSAA
Direct Grants
$74,114
$5,680,955
$10,685,414
$19,844
$68,797
$4,010,091
$186,817
$225,144
$248,040
$0
$21,199,216
MSI Programs
$0
$375,276
$931,733
$0
$7,613
$312,641
$0
$0
$0
$75,023
$1,702,285
FIPSE
$128
$64,852
$25,176
$0
$0
$23,330
$0
$0
$0
$0
$113,486
Subtotal
$74,242
$6,121,083
$11,642,324
$19,844
$76,410
$4,346,062
$186,817
$225,144
$248,040
$75,023
$23,014,987

CRS-105

Institutional Sector

Public
Private Nonprofit
Proprietary

Act/
Program
Less-
than-2-
Year
2-Year
4-Year
Less-
than-2-
Year
2-Year
4-Year
Less-
than-2-
Year
2-Year
4-Year
Additional
Fundinga
Total
Share of
HEERF II
Funds
0.32%
26.60%
50.59%
0.09%
0.33%
18.88%
0.81%
0.98%
1.08%
0.33%
100.00%
ARPA
Direct Grants
$131,429
$9,926,575
$18,772,725
$34,740
$116,618
$7,052,485
$110,341
$131,731
$141,160
$0
$36,417,804
MSI Programs
$0
$684,783
$1,631,340
$0
$21,821
$630,900
$0
$0
$0
$0
$2,968,843
FIPSE
$375
$128,052
$46,270
$0
$679
$22,460
$0
$0
$87
$0
$197,923
Subtotal
$131,804
$10,739,409
$20,450,334
$34,740
$139,118
$7,705,845
$110,341
$131,731
$141,247
$0
$39,584,570
Share of
HEERF III
Funds
0.33%
27.13%
51.66%
0.09%
0.35%
19.47%
0.28%
0.33%
0.36%
0.00%
100.00%
CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA
Total HEERF
$318,482
$19,742,800
$39,058,537
$78,217
$286,063
$14,890,082
$614,989
$765,045
$757,158
$125,023
$76,636,396
Share of Total
HEERF Funds
0.42%
25.76%
50.97%
0.10%
0.37%
19.43%
0.80%
1.00%
0.99%
0.16%
100.00%
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data available from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) at https://www2.ed.gov/
about/offices/list/ope/caresact.html, https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/crrsaa.html, and https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/arp.html (HEERF III).
Notes: With a few exceptions, the allocation amounts are initial amounts available to eligible IHEs. Actual amounts awarded to IHEs may differ as IHEs must apply
and/or agree to accept the terms and conditions of the awards. These amounts exclude $753 million in rescissions enacted by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(P.L. 117-58) and the Keep Kids Fed Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-158). Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Percentages were calculated based on unrounded
numbers.
a.
The additional funds to be allocated under the HEERF include $50 million set aside by ED from the HEERF I direct grants for institutions that were eligible but may
have been excluded by the formula and $75 million awarded under the HEERF II MSI Historically Black Colleges and Universities program in accordance with each
IHE’s inverse share of total endowments.

CRS-106
b.
Although proprietary institutions are not eligible for funding under the HEERF III FIPSE through the SSARP program because eligibility is limited to those institutions
that are eligible under Part B, Title VII of the HEA, ED documentation lists Atlanta’s John Marshall Law School, a proprietary institution, as a successful applicant.
Table F-2. Estimated Allocations to IHEs Under the HEERF Provided by the CARES Act, Aggregated at the State Level
(HEERF I)
(Dollars in thousands)
State/Entity
Estimated
Direct Grants
Estimated MSI
Program
Grants
Actual and
Estimated
FIPSE Grants
Subtotal
Share of
HEERF I Funds
Alabama
$199,119
$73,118
$4,668
$276,905
1.97%
Alaska
$9,432
$3,923
$970
$14,325
0.10%
Arizona
$288,752
$13,573
$5,414
$307,738
2.19%
Arkansas
$120,858
$14,618
$3,297
$138,772
0.99%
California
$1,709,452
$83,627
$38,826
$1,831,906
13.02%
Colorado
$167,984
$4,807
$9,024
$181,815
1.29%
Connecticut
$141,283
$2,488
$7,322
$151,093
1.07%
Delaware
$34,027
$11,894
$1,235
$47,155
0.34%
District of Columbia
$47,868
$8,004
$2,236
$58,108
0.41%
Florida
$740,208
$68,460
$20,192
$828,861
5.89%
Georgia
$406,119
$57,778
$9,337
$473,234
3.36%
Hawaii
$31,026
$22,835
$2,884
$56,744
0.40%
Idaho
$60,036
$1,097
$370
$61,503
0.44%
Illinois
$438,443
$12,089
$19,053
$469,585
3.34%
Indiana
$235,548
$4,184
$4,284
$244,016
1.73%
Iowa
$119,776
$2,358
$3,011
$125,145
0.89%
Kansas
$104,951
$4,773
$2,666
$112,390
0.80%
Kentucky
$156,808
$6,432
$2,708
$165,949
1.18%
Louisiana
$189,864
$49,591
$1,908
$241,362
1.72%

CRS-107
State/Entity
Estimated
Direct Grants
Estimated MSI
Program
Grants
Actual and
Estimated
FIPSE Grants
Subtotal
Share of
HEERF I Funds
Maine
$41,093
$1,156
$1,802
$44,051
0.31%
Maryland
$188,939
$46,662
$5,899
$241,500
1.72%
Massachusetts
$280,277
$4,933
$19,117
$304,327
2.16%
Michigan
$354,834
$9,116
$5,888
$369,838
2.63%
Minnesota
$183,849
$5,673
$5,189
$194,711
1.38%
Mississippi
$149,058
$55,209
$918
$205,185
1.46%
Missouri
$205,995
$11,789
$14,745
$232,529
1.65%
Montana
$31,873
$10,067
$715
$42,656
0.30%
Nebraska
$67,223
$2,311
$1,051
$70,585
0.50%
Nevada
$70,350
$3,160
$808
$74,319
0.53%
New Hampshire
$40,698
$371
$2,084
$43,152
0.31%
New Jersey
$323,081
$13,162
$15,701
$351,944
2.50%
New Mexico
$62,283
$11,938
$1,096
$75,316
0.54%
New York
$920,624
$28,458
$46,525
$995,607
7.08%
North Carolina
$378,297
$88,086
$8,286
$474,669
3.37%
North Dakota
$23,287
$6,959
$1,303
$31,549
0.22%
Ohio
$394,599
$11,610
$28,892
$435,102
3.09%
Oklahoma
$159,882
$12,997
$9,147
$182,026
1.29%
Oregon
$127,113
$3,656
$8,771
$139,541
0.99%
Pennsylvania
$487,129
$13,259
$30,703
$531,091
3.78%
Puerto Rico
$323,782
$16,929
$5,488
$346,199
2.46%
Rhode Island
$64,731
$1,739
$445
$66,915
0.48%
South Carolina
$180,498
$25,783
$2,623
$208,903
1.49%

CRS-108
State/Entity
Estimated
Direct Grants
Estimated MSI
Program
Grants
Actual and
Estimated
FIPSE Grants
Subtotal
Share of
HEERF I Funds
South Dakota
$27,147
$5,990
$1,959
$35,096
0.25%
Tennessee
$237,170
$30,474
$9,176
$276,821
1.97%
Texas
$1,022,172
$115,083
$19,944
$1,157,199
8.23%
Utah
$143,643
$3,977
$1,465
$149,085
1.06%
Vermont
$21,566
$327
$2,374
$24,267
0.17%
Virginia
$294,171
$41,056
$11,935
$347,162
2.47%
Washington
$226,092
$5,552
$8,957
$240,601
1.71%
West Virginia
$66,559
$6,131
$9,358
$82,049
0.58%
Wisconsin
$176,734
$5,209
$10,921
$192,864
1.37%
Wyoming
$13,586
$29
$79
$13,695
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%
Marshall Islands
$1,957
$8
$0
$1,964
0.01%
Northern Mariana Islands
$1,839
$7
$0
$1,847
0.01%
Palau
$759
$3
$0
$763
0.01%
U.S. Virgin Islands
$1,714
$1,875
$0
$3,589
0.03%
Additional fundsa
$50,000
$0
$0
$50,000
0.36%
Total
$12,557,255
$1,046,438
$461,323
$14,065,015
100.00%
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data available from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) at https://www2.ed.gov/
about/offices/list/ope/caresact.html.
Notes: With a few exceptions, the allocation amounts are initial amounts available to eligible IHEs. Actual amounts awarded to IHEs may differ as IHEs must apply
and/or agree to accept the terms and conditions of the awards. These amounts exclude $753 million in rescissions enacted by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(P.L. 117-58) and the Keep Kids Fed Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-158). Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Percentages were calculated based on unrounded
numbers. NA = not applicable.

CRS-109
a.
The additional funds to be allocated under the HEERF I are $50 million set aside by ED from the direct grants for institutions that were eligible but may have been
excluded by the formula.

Table F-3. Estimated Allocations to IHEs Under the HEERF Provided by the CRRSAA, Aggregated at the State Level
(HEERF II)
(Dollars in thousands)
State/Entity
Estimated
Direct Grants
Estimated MSI
Program
Grants
Actual FIPSE
Grants
Subtotal
Share of
HEERF II
Funds
Alabama
$338,269
$103,067
$6,632
$447,968
1.95%
Alaska
$19,137
$7,235
$0
$26,372
0.11%
Arizona
$432,145
$22,115
$1,931
$456,191
1.98%
Arkansas
$208,632
$20,867
$6,027
$235,526
1.02%
California
$2,942,033
$141,963
$20,068
$3,104,065
13.49%
Colorado
$291,842
$8,264
$223
$300,329
1.30%
Connecticut
$219,776
$4,123
$0
$223,898
0.97%
Delaware
$57,790
$13,020
$0
$70,809
0.31%
District of Columbia
$68,894
$11,318
$0
$80,212
0.35%
Florida
$1,307,582
$99,161
$0
$1,406,743
6.11%
Georgia
$696,293
$121,795
$4,665
$822,753
3.57%
Hawaii
$56,160
$36,476
$4,186
$96,822
0.42%
Idaho
$114,948
$2,018
$0
$116,966
0.51%
Illinois
$744,346
$19,951
$1,341
$765,638
3.33%
Indiana
$408,976
$7,893
$282
$417,151
1.81%
Iowa
$207,509
$4,077
$858
$212,444
0.92%
Kansas
$186,643
$7,783
$372
$194,798
0.85%

CRS-110
State/Entity
Estimated
Direct Grants
Estimated MSI
Program
Grants
Actual FIPSE
Grants
Subtotal
Share of
HEERF II
Funds
Kentucky
$269,308
$13,227
$5,712
$288,247
1.25%
Louisiana
$320,676
$78,406
$0
$399,082
1.73%
Maine
$71,297
$1,905
$0
$73,202
0.32%
Maryland
$318,988
$53,951
$218
$373,157
1.62%
Massachusetts
$468,513
$8,172
$6,146
$482,831
2.10%
Michigan
$600,279
$15,108
$0
$615,386
2.67%
Minnesota
$318,387
$9,159
$1,145
$328,690
1.43%
Mississippi
$246,710
$82,930
$2,282
$331,922
1.44%
Missouri
$362,845
$19,060
$0
$381,905
1.66%
Montana
$53,538
$16,247
$0
$69,785
0.30%
Nebraska
$119,717
$3,808
$0
$123,525
0.54%
Nevada
$118,659
$5,211
$667
$124,538
0.54%
New Hampshire
$94,460
$1,246
$0
$95,706
0.42%
New Jersey
$525,639
$20,450
$347
$546,435
2.37%
New Mexico
$120,602
$19,946
$1,937
$142,484
0.62%
New York
$1,517,598
$45,104
$14,508
$1,577,210
6.85%
North Carolina
$647,225
$116,255
$8,562
$772,042
3.35%
North Dakota
$39,819
$11,312
$0
$51,131
0.22%
Ohio
$657,881
$19,829
$49
$677,759
2.94%
Oklahoma
$256,381
$19,425
$562
$276,368
1.20%
Oregon
$230,470
$6,653
$643
$237,766
1.03%
Pennsylvania
$762,951
$18,968
$3,157
$785,075
3.41%
Puerto Rico
$453,200
$24,461
$0
$477,661
2.08%

CRS-111
State/Entity
Estimated
Direct Grants
Estimated MSI
Program
Grants
Actual FIPSE
Grants
Subtotal
Share of
HEERF II
Funds
Rhode Island
$103,048
$2,580
$0
$105,629
0.46%
South Carolina
$300,624
$34,480
$0
$335,104
1.46%
South Dakota
$45,848
$9,743
$0
$55,591
0.24%
Tennessee
$404,593
$61,844
$3,319
$469,756
2.04%
Texas
$1,790,050
$182,637
$10,817
$1,983,504
8.62%
Utah
$286,618
$6,834
$0
$293,452
1.28%
Vermont
$36,989
$573
$0
$37,562
0.16%
Virginia
$492,404
$54,402
$635
$547,440
2.38%
Washington
$378,793
$9,063
$4,605
$392,461
1.71%
West Virginia
$109,659
$10,737
$517
$120,913
0.53%
Wisconsin
$318,009
$8,555
$1,072
$327,637
1.42%
Wyoming
$25,201
$56
$0
$25,257
0.11%
American Samoa
$2,670
$9
$0
$2,679
0.01%
Federated States of
Micronesia
$6,750
$24
$0
$6,773
0.03%
Guam
$10,448
$37
$0
$10,486
0.05%
Marshall Islands
$3,719
$13
$0
$3,733
0.02%
Northern Mariana Islands
$3,275
$12
$0
$3,286
0.01%
Palau
$1,283
$5
$0
$1,288
0.01%
U.S. Virgin Islands
$3,121
$3,703
$0
$6,824
0.03%
Additional fundsa
$0
$75,023
$0
$75,023
0.33%
Total
$21,199,216
$1,702,285
$113,486
$23,014,987
100.00%
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data available from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) at https://www2.ed.gov/
about/offices/list/ope/crrsaa.html.

CRS-112
Notes: With a few exceptions, the allocation amounts are initial amounts available to eligible IHEs. Actual amounts awarded to IHEs may differ as IHEs must apply
and/or agree to accept the terms and conditions of the awards. These amounts exclude $753 million in rescissions enacted by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(P.L. 117-58) and the Keep Kids Fed Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-158). Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Percentages were calculated based on unrounded
numbers. NA = not available.
a.
The additional funds to be allocated under HEERF II are $75 million awarded under the MSI Historically Black Colleges and Universities program in accordance with
each IHE’s inverse share of total endowments.

Table F-4. Estimated Allocations to IHEs Under the HEERF Provided by the ARPA, Aggregated at the State Level (HEERF III)
(Dollars in thousands)
State/Entity
Estimated
Direct Grants
Estimated MSI
Program
Grants
Actual FIPSE
Grantsa
Subtotal
Share of
HEERF III
Funds
Alabama
$587,239
$212,674
$4,850
$804,762
2.03%
Alaska
$32,426
$9,856
$0
$42,283
0.11%
Arizona
$675,275
$41,141
$310
$716,726
1.81%
Arkansas
$358,844
$47,379
$6,515
$412,738
1.04%
California
$5,029,222
$244,123
$12,953
$5,286,298
13.35%
Colorado
$500,777
$15,913
$870
$517,560
1.31%
Connecticut
$369,909
$7,523
$2,967
$380,399
0.96%
Delaware
$100,337
$22,961
$0
$123,298
0.31%
District of Columbia
$113,189
$19,826
$0
$133,015
0.34%
Florida
$2,222,100
$168,533
$15,481
$2,406,113
6.08%
Georgia
$1,193,438
$216,581
$9,987
$1,420,005
3.59%
Hawaii
$98,042
$42,830
$2,215
$143,087
0.36%
Idaho
$205,191
$2,107
$0
$207,298
0.52%
Illinois
$1,281,479
$37,026
$5,609
$1,324,114
3.35%
Indiana
$701,068
$14,215
$0
$715,283
1.81%
Iowa
$364,873
$8,151
$1,634
$374,657
0.95%

CRS-113
State/Entity
Estimated
Direct Grants
Estimated MSI
Program
Grants
Actual FIPSE
Grantsa
Subtotal
Share of
HEERF III
Funds
Kansas
$331,913
$14,417
$513
$346,843
0.88%
Kentucky
$456,988
$29,141
$9,898
$496,027
1.25%
Louisiana
$539,050
$144,390
$13,457
$696,897
1.76%
Maine
$122,114
$2,660
$1,159
$125,933
0.32%
Maryland
$549,526
$100,982
$0
$650,508
1.64%
Massachusetts
$826,184
$15,222
$5,464
$846,870
2.14%
Michigan
$1,034,831
$24,943
$684
$1,060,458
2.68%
Minnesota
$548,184
$16,962
$2,318
$567,463
1.43%
Mississippi
$425,419
$149,354
$1,596
$576,379
1.46%
Missouri
$630,404
$46,429
$2,214
$679,046
1.72%
Montana
$93,551
$28,129
$279
$121,959
0.31%
Nebraska
$208,815
$8,851
$0
$217,666
0.55%
Nevada
$203,746
$9,769
$0
$213,515
0.54%
New Hampshire
$163,737
$2,270
$177
$166,184
0.42%
New Jersey
$906,504
$30,159
$7,033
$943,696
2.38%
New Mexico
$210,709
$34,160
$48
$244,917
0.62%
New York
$2,621,517
$77,558
$39,293
$2,738,368
6.92%
North Carolina
$1,109,199
$204,003
$3,620
$1,316,822
3.33%
North Dakota
$75,899
$19,899
$0
$95,798
0.24%
Ohio
$1,140,470
$41,765
$2,559
$1,184,794
2.99%
Oklahoma
$418,623
$36,769
$343
$455,735
1.15%
Oregon
$403,043
$11,690
$2,129
$416,862
1.05%
Pennsylvania
$1,315,051
$27,321
$8,019
$1,350,391
3.41%

CRS-114
State/Entity
Estimated
Direct Grants
Estimated MSI
Program
Grants
Actual FIPSE
Grantsa
Subtotal
Share of
HEERF III
Funds
Puerto Rico
$744,563
$41,557
$1,023
$787,143
1.99%
Rhode Island
$179,607
$4,675
$377
$184,659
0.47%
South Carolina
$523,207
$77,927
$3,943
$605,077
1.53%
South Dakota
$78,736
$17,123
$0
$95,859
0.24%
Tennessee
$704,130
$115,543
$3,974
$823,647
2.08%
Texas
$3,099,154
$324,697
$17,340
$3,441,191
8.69%
Utah
$496,708
$9,260
$0
$505,968
1.28%
Vermont
$65,168
$892
$289
$66,349
0.17%
Virginia
$843,882
$104,282
$2,676
$950,840
2.40%
Washington
$659,967
$17,802
$2,159
$679,928
1.72%
West Virginia
$190,063
$21,991
$658
$212,711
0.54%
Wisconsin
$564,550
$14,876
$701
$580,126
1.47%
Wyoming
$44,354
$251
$0
$44,604
0.11%
American Samoa
$4,674
$2,253
$0
$6,927
0.02%
Federated States of Micronesia
$11,778
$5,635
$0
$17,413
0.04%
Guam
$18,304
$8,898
$590
$27,202
0.07%
Marshall Islands
$6,498
$3,111
$0
$9,608
0.02%
Northern Mariana Islands
$5,685
$2,739
$0
$8,425
0.02%
Palau
$2,243
$1,074
$0
$3,317
0.01%
U.S. Virgin Islands
$5,647
$6,579
$0
$12,225
0.03%
Additional funds
$0
$0
$0
$0
0.00%
Total
$36,417,804
$2,968,843
$197,923
$39,584,570
100.00%
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data available from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) at https://www2.ed.gov/
about/offices/list/ope/arp.html.

CRS-115
Notes: With a few exceptions, the allocation amounts are initial amounts available to eligible IHEs. Actual amounts awarded to IHEs may differ as IHEs must apply
and/or agree to accept the terms and conditions of the awards. These amounts exclude $753 million in rescissions enacted by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(P.L. 117-58) and the Keep Kids Fed Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-158). Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Percentages were calculated based on unrounded
numbers. NA = not available.
a.
On January 20, 2022, ED announced that it planned to invite applications for the ARPA FIPSE grants during the following week; therefore, the funds have not been
distributed.
Table F-5. Estimated Allocations to IHEs Under the HEERF Provided by the CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA, Aggregated at
the State Level
(Dollars in thousands)

CRS-116

CARES Act
CRRSAA
ARPA
CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA
State/Entity
HEERF I
Allocations
Share of
HEERF I
Funds
HEERF II
Allocations
Share of
HEERF II
Funds
HEERF III
Allocations
Share of
HEERF III
Funds
Total HEERF
Allocations
Share of Total
HEERF Funds
Indiana
$244,016
1.73%
$417,151
1.81%
$715,283
1.81%
$1,376,450
1.80%
Iowa
$125,145
0.89%
$212,444
0.92%
$374,657
0.95%
$712,247
0.93%
Kansas
$112,390
0.80%
$194,798
0.85%
$346,843
0.88%
$654,031
0.85%
Kentucky
$165,949
1.18%
$288,247
1.25%
$496,027
1.25%
$950,223
1.24%
Louisiana
$241,362
1.72%
$399,082
1.73%
$696,897
1.76%
$1,337,341
1.74%
Maine
$44,051
0.31%
$73,202
0.32%
$125,933
0.32%
$243,186
0.32%
Maryland
$241,500
1.72%
$373,157
1.62%
$650,508
1.64%
$1,265,165
1.65%
Massachusetts
$304,327
2.16%
$482,831
2.10%
$846,870
2.14%
$1,634,028
2.13%
Michigan
$369,838
2.63%
$615,386
2.67%
$1,060,458
2.68%
$2,045,682
2.67%
Minnesota
$194,711
1.38%
$328,690
1.43%
$567,463
1.43%
$1,090,864
1.42%
Mississippi
$205,185
1.46%
$331,922
1.44%
$576,369
1.46%
$1,113,476
1.45%
Missouri
$232,529
1.65%
$381,905
1.66%
$679,046
1.72%
$1,293,480
1.69%
Montana
$42,656
0.30%
$69,785
0.30%
$121,959
0.31%
$234,399
0.31%
Nebraska
$70,585
0.50%
$123,525
0.54%
$217,666
0.55%
$411,777
0.54%
Nevada
$74,319
0.53%
$124,538
0.54%
$213,515
0.54%
$412,372
0.54%
New Hampshire
$43,152
0.31%
$95,706
0.42%
$166,184
0.42%
$305,042
0.40%
New Jersey
$351,944
2.50%
$546,435
2.37%
$943,696
2.38%
$1,842,075
2.40%
New Mexico
$75,316
0.54%
$142,484
0.62%
$244,917
0.62%
$462,718
0.60%
New York
$995,607
7.08%
$1,577,210
6.85%
$2,738,368
6.92%
$5,311,186
6.93%
North Carolina
$474,669
3.37%
$772,042
3.35%
$1,316,822
3.33%
$2,563,532
3.34%
North Dakota
$31,549
0.22%
$51,131
0.22%
$95,798
0.24%
$178,478
0.23%

CRS-117

CARES Act
CRRSAA
ARPA
CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA
State/Entity
HEERF I
Allocations
Share of
HEERF I
Funds
HEERF II
Allocations
Share of
HEERF II
Funds
HEERF III
Allocations
Share of
HEERF III
Funds
Total HEERF
Allocations
Share of Total
HEERF Funds
Ohio
$435,102
3.09%
$677,759
2.94%
$1,184,794
2.99%
$2,297,655
3.00%
Oklahoma
$182,026
1.29%
$276,368
1.20%
$455,735
1.15%
$914,129
1.19%
Oregon
$139,541
0.99%
$237,766
1.03%
$416,862
1.05%
$794,168
1.04%
Pennsylvania
$531,091
3.78%
$785,075
3.41%
$1,350,391
3.41%
$2,666,558
3.48%
Puerto Rico
$346,199
2.46%
$477,661
2.08%
$787,143
1.99%
$1,611,002
2.10%
Rhode Island
$66,915
0.48%
$105,629
0.46%
$184,659
0.47%
$357,204
0.47%
South Carolina
$208,903
1.49%
$335,104
1.46%
$605,077
1.53%
$1,149,084
1.50%
South Dakota
$35,096
0.25%
$55,591
0.24%
$95,859
0.24%
$186,546
0.24%
Tennessee
$276,821
1.97%
$469,756
2.04%
$823,647
2.08%
$1,570,223
2.05%
Texas
$1,157,199
8.23%
$1,983,504
8.62%
$3,441,191
8.69%
$6,581,893
8.59%
Utah
$149,085
1.06%
$293,452
1.28%
$505,968
1.28%
$948,505
1.24%
Vermont
$24,267
0.17%
$37,562
0.16%
$66,349
0.17%
$128,178
0.17%
Virginia
$347,162
2.47%
$547,440
2.38%
$950,840
2.40%
$1,845,443
2.41%
Washington
$240,601
1.71%
$392,461
1.71%
$679,928
1.72%
$1,312,991
1.71%
West Virginia
$82,049
0.58%
$120,913
0.53%
$212,711
0.54%
$415,673
0.54%
Wisconsin
$192,864
1.37%
$327,637
1.42%
$580,126
1.47%
$1,100,627
1.44%
Wyoming
$13,695
0.10%
$25,257
0.11%
$44,604
0.11%
$83,556
0.11%
American Samoa
$1,624
0.01%
$2,679
0.01%
$6,927
0.02%
$11,230
0.01%
Federated States of
Micronesia
$3,655
0.03%
$6,773
0.03%
$17,413
0.04%
$27,841
0.04%
Guam
$6,237
0.04%
$10,486
0.05%
$27,792
0.07%
$44,515
0.06%

CRS-118

CARES Act
CRRSAA
ARPA
CARES Act, CRRSAA, and ARPA
State/Entity
HEERF I
Allocations
Share of
HEERF I
Funds
HEERF II
Allocations
Share of
HEERF II
Funds
HEERF III
Allocations
Share of
HEERF III
Funds
Total HEERF
Allocations
Share of Total
HEERF Funds
Marshall Islands
$1,964
0.01%
$3,733
0.02%
$9,608
0.02%
$15,306
0.02%
Northern Mariana
Islands
$1,847
0.01%
$3,286
0.01%
$8,425
0.02%
$13,558
0.02%
Palau
$763
0.01%
$1,288
0.01%
$3,317
0.01%
$5,367
0.01%
U.S. Virgin Islands
$3,589
0.03%
$6,824
0.03%
$12,225
0.03%
$22,639
0.03%
Additional fundsa
$50,000
0.36%
$75,023
0.33%
$0
0.00%
$125,023
0.16%
Total
$14,065,015
100.00%
$23,014,987
100.00%
$39,584,570
100.00%
$76,636,396
100.00%
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on data available from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) at https://www2.ed.gov/
about/offices/list/ope/caresact.html, https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/crrsaa.html, and https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/arp.html.
Notes: With a few exceptions, the allocation amounts are initial amounts available to eligible IHEs. Actual amounts awarded to IHEs may differ as IHEs must apply
and/or agree to accept the terms and conditions of the awards. These amounts exclude $753 million in rescissions enacted by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
(P.L. 117-58) and the Keep Kids Fed Act of 2022 (P.L. 117-158). Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Percentages were calculated based on unrounded
numbers. NA = not applicable.
a.
The additional funds to be allocated under the HEERF include $50 million set aside by ED from the HEERF I direct grants for institutions that were eligible but may
have excluded by the formula and $75 million awarded under the HEERF II MSI Historically Black Colleges and Universities program in accordance with each IHE’s
inverse share of total endowments.

ESF Funded by CARES, CRRSAA, and ARPA

Congressional Research Service
R47027 · VERSION 10 · UPDATED
119

Author Information

Rebecca R. Skinner
Specialist in Education Policy

Cassandria Dortch
Specialist in Education Policy

Joselynn H. Fountain
Analyst in Education Policy

Acknowledgments
Emma Nyhof, former CRS Research Assistant, also contributed to this report.

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 not 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.

File and source

File: R47027-education-stabilization-fund-esser-heerf.pdf
Size: 2,459,773 bytes
SHA-256: eb69f7dfb8e001fdc7c21de2a7af7a0c534ff86a3252a49fbdd5c7ad2ec34a09
Our copy: R47027-education-stabilization-fund-esser-heerf.pdf
Original: No public link identified.

CRS Report R47027 — Education Stabilization Fund Programs (ESSER/HEERF)

Record facts

Full text

File and source

Related records