Adult English Instruction at Risk: The Threat of Federal Funding Cuts and Potential State Responses

Executive Summary

Attaining English proficiency is widely recognized as essential for immigrants seeking to successfully integrate into U.S. communities and advance in the workforce. Improved English skills can unlock many benefits, including greater social connections, an improved ability to navigate American society, and opportunities for higher wages and economic mobility.

Adult education programs across the country offer free or low-cost English instruction to learners at all levels, in many cases pairing it with civics content and workforce development services that support immigrants’ economic and social integration. Publicly funded adult English programs serve more than 600,000 individuals each year. But while these programs represent one of the federal government’s primary investments in the critically important goal of immigrant integration, they remain significantly underfunded. Due to limited resources, programs that receive federal funding meet less than 5 percent of the need for adult English instruction across the country. The federal policy framework governing these programs can also create challenges for adult English programs by requiring them to adhere to performance and reporting requirements that can strain providers’ capacity and limit their ability to serve adults with lower levels of formal education or non-workforce goals.

The federal-state partnership under Title II of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) is one of the primary sources of funding for adult education programs serving both immigrant and U.S.-born learners nationwide. This system, however, faces multiple challenges under the second Trump administration, including imposition of restrictive immigration status requirements for program participants and wider disruption resulting from the ongoing dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education. Most notable among these new headwinds has been the Trump administration’s efforts to withhold, reduce, or eliminate federal funding for adult education programs. Although federal funding has remained in place for fiscal year 2026, the threat of future cuts or withholding persists.

These disruptions and threats have exposed a critical vulnerability: many states rely heavily on federal funds to sustain their adult education programs. Some of these same states also have large populations of adults in need of English instruction. Given ongoing uncertainty at the federal level, this dependence should be a prime concern for service providers, system leaders, state policymakers, and advocates. If federal funding were to be withheld or reduced, these states could see their capacity to provide English instruction and other adult education programming greatly reduced, and some programs, particularly those in lower-resourced areas, might be forced to close their doors. That risk is compounded by the likelihood that many states will also need to absorb federal cuts to Medicaid and other programs in coming years, leaving them with less flexibility to add funding to their adult education systems.

To better understand states’ vulnerabilities to reductions in federal adult education funding, this report examines average funding levels over a five-year period (program years 2018–22). Key findings include:

• In 27 states, half or more of the support for WIOA Title II adult education programs came from the federal government.
• Nine states—Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Virginia—received 70 percent or more of their program funds from the federal government, and four more (Georgia, Idaho, Mississippi, and Texas) received more than two-thirds of their funding from the federal government.
• In contrast, nine states—Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington—contributed 75 percent or more of the funding for their programs from state and local sources, giving these states some protection against federal cuts and greater program sustainability.
• Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia are particularly exposed to potential losses of adult English instruction capacity since they have a heavy reliance on federal funds and are among the top 20 states with the largest populations of adults with limited English proficiency. Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas also have large numbers of adults with limited English and are heavily reliant (albeit to a slightly smaller degree) on federal funding.

States have opportunities to address these vulnerabilities and better support English acquisition and immigrant integration through their adult education systems. These include:

• Increasing the size of state funding contributions for WIOA Title II programs in order to raise provider capacity to serve adult English learners and provide greater protection from potential federal funding cuts;
• Dedicating new, flexible funding for adult English instruction tied to specific outcomes, such as English instruction for workers in key industries or support for internationally trained professionals whose skills are underutilized;
• Providing targeted investments to increase programs’ capacity and sustainability in lower-resourced and rural areas; and
• Leveraging larger funding streams, such as workforce development dollars, to support important outcomes for adult English learners such as upskilling workers to fill in-demand jobs or helping immigrant parents support their children’s academic success.

The current moment presents a serious challenge for adult education systems supporting the linguistic, civic, and economic integration of immigrant adults, but it also presents an opportunity. States can take advantage of disruptions at the federal level and draw on their authority and system knowledge to reimagine their adult education policies and practices, crafting innovative programs that more effectively support the successful integration of immigrants in their communities.

1 Introduction

The integration of immigrants benefits immigrants themselves, the communities they settle in, and the United States as a whole. It builds social cohesion and increases immigrants’ economic and other contributions to society.1 Integration looks different for each person and can involve a variety of steps such as learning English, finding work and becoming economically self-sufficient, and naturalizing as citizens. There is also a two-generational dimension to integration: when immigrants are able to successfully establish themselves in U.S. communities, this can help to ensure their children grow into a thriving generation of Americans.

There is no single national system in the United States dedicated to promoting the integration of immigrants. Instead, integration intertwines with many public systems, programs, and services, most of which are not specifically designed to serve immigrants. For example, the services and supports that K-12 schools offer to immigrant children can have enormous impacts on the economic and social trajectories of immigrant families. Community-based organizations also play a critical role in supporting integration at the local level.

Although usually not conceived as such, adult education is one of these key public services that promotes immigrant integration. Adult education programs across all 50 states are one of the primary public investments in adult English instruction, particularly programs that are free or low-cost. Through adult education courses, immigrants can also improve other foundational skills that support their integration such as building understanding of American society and civics, learning new digital and other skills to help them advance in their careers, obtaining a high school diploma or equivalent, and participating directly in workforce development activities. Data on participants in federally funded adult education programs reflect this reality; half of the 1.2 million adults served by federally funded adult education services in program year 2023 participated in programs for English learners.2

"Although usually not conceived as such, adult education is one of these key public services that promotes immigrant integration."

A range of local providers including community-based organizations, schools, and community colleges deliver adult education services nationwide, supported by a federal-state partnership that took its current form in 2014. This partnership and its funding stream now face serious challenges under the second Trump administration, challenges that extend well beyond the administration’s sweeping changes to immigration policy.3

The federal government’s role in supporting adult education has historically attracted relatively little attention from national policymakers, but it has not been overlooked in the current administration’s wide-ranging efforts to reshape federal programs and the federal government more broadly. In addition to large-scale staff reductions at the Department of Education, which the administration seeks to dismantle entirely,4 the Trump administration has taken a number of steps that aim to restrict, reform, and even eliminate federal support for adult education. These have included zeroing-out all federal funding for adult education in the president’s budget, attempting to move administration of programs to the Department of Labor, and imposing new immigration status restrictions on local programs.

These actions—particularly the prospect of funding cuts—present new and serious challenges for state adult education agencies, local providers, and adult learners. Federal funding comprises a significant portion of the dollars that support local providers nationwide, and many states rely disproportionately on federal funding for adult education. For a system that already has limited resources, federal cuts could further constrict provider capacity to support adult learners and, by extension, immigrant integration.

Even if funding cuts are not ultimately enacted, this threat has revealed a key vulnerability for state systems: their heavy reliance on federal funding to sustain their programs. This imbalance has long been a concern, but the current pace of change and high level of uncertainty in federal policymaking have further highlighted this risk to program sustainability. Amid heightened attention to this issue, states now also have an opportunity to shore up their systems through strategic investment, policy changes, and enhanced programming.

This report examines the potential impacts of cuts to federal adult education funding and identifies states that would be left in a particularly vulnerable position if federal support is reduced. First, it traces the connection between adult education and immigrant integration, then describes challenges facing the federal-state policy framework supporting adult education. Using data from the U.S. Department of Education’s National Reporting System (NRS) as well as the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, the analysis then identifies the states most exposed to potential federal funding cuts. The final section offers considerations and policy options for state leaders and advocates seeking to preserve and strengthen programs that effectively support adult English learning and immigrants’ integration.

2 Adult Education and Immigrant Integration: Critical Supports and Growing Need for Services

Adult education programs are often conceived as solely providing high school equivalency programs or “night school,” but this perception obscures the broader and critical work of the sector. Adult education programs help adult learners access a wide range of educational and workforce supports, including foundational literacy and numeracy courses, digital skills training, workforce preparation, and English instruction. Although sometimes connected to postsecondary institutions, adult education is a distinct system designed to help adults overcome particular educational barriers such as limited proficiency in English or lack of a high school diploma. Many programs also have components that aim to boost participants’ employability and economic mobility, including by helping participants obtain industry-recognized credentials, develop in-demand skills, and qualify for higher-wage jobs.

For immigrants, adult education programs are typically the primary source of free or low-cost English instruction. Programs also regularly offer civics courses that help immigrants navigate educational, financial, social, health, and government institutions, and many include preparation for naturalization.5 Providers may also deliver specialized workforce development activities for immigrants such as English instruction tailored to a particular workplace or industry.

The need for adult English instruction in the United States is large and growing. The number of individuals with limited proficiency in English has nearly doubled in the past three and a half decades—from 13.9 million in 1990 to 27.6 million in 2023.6 Of those, 24.8 million are adults. Most are immigrants, many of whom are naturalized citizens, but this population also includes millions of U.S.-born individuals. The Limited English Proficient (LEP) adult population7 is not limited to a few regions of the country. As Figure 1 shows, only ten states have fewer than 50,000 LEP adult residents, most of them states with relatively small overall populations.

Yet due to limited funding, many adult education programs do not have the capacity to meet the demand for English instruction and often have waitlists.8 Underfunding is also a driving factor behind the lack of full-time instructors in many programs. Federal data for program year 2023 show that only 19 percent of teachers in federally funded programs worked full time, while 68 percent were part time and 12 percent were volunteers.9 Illustrating the impact of these related challenges, previous MPI analyses have found that the formal adult education system meets less than 5 percent of the need for adult English instruction in the country.10

Looking at the adult education sector from the community level, programming is mostly decentralized and delivered by an array of local providers. These include school districts, community and technical colleges, community-based organizations, libraries, and in certain states, specialized adult schools. Some programs are delivered in traditional classroom settings, others in workplaces or by workforce development agencies, and others online, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic. Because many adult educators are part-time employees, many programs rely on volunteers to add to their instructional capacity. Providers often braid funding from government sources (whether state, local, or federal) alongside private donations, philanthropic dollars, and/or fees charged to students. For many programs, federal and state funds are significant sources of support.11 One national survey of providers from 2025 found that, among providers that received federal and state funds, these dollars made up on average 60 percent of total funding for their programs.12

3 The Federal-State Partnership on Adult Education and New Trump-Era Challenges

Adult education programs receiving federal funds are governed under a federal-state partnership system established by Title II of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) in 2014.13 At the federal level, the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education (OCTAE) is responsible for overseeing and supporting states’ and local providers’ implementation of WIOA Title II programs.14 Federal funding flows down to states based on formulas established for different programs and is administered by each state’s adult education agency, which may be housed in different departments depending on the state.15 States then combine federal dollars with their own contributions and distribute funds to local providers through separate competitive grant processes. As a condition of receiving these funds, states and local providers must meet performance reporting requirements and follow other WIOA rules and regulations.16

WIOA Title II defines two programs that are intended to serve adult English learners and support their integration: English Language Acquisition, which funds general adult English instruction, and Integrated English Literacy and Civics Education (IELCE), which combines English instruction, civics instruction, and workforce activities—discussed in more detail in Section 5.17 Participants in these programs comprise roughly half of all WIOA Title II program participants, demonstrating both the nationwide demand for these services as well as WIOA Title II’s key role in supporting immigrant integration.18

States are required to partially match the federal adult education funds they receive. This match, also referred to as a non-federal contribution, must be at least 25 percent of the total amount spent by the state on adult education and literacy activities, though many states provide a larger contribution, as this report details in Section 4. This contribution must also be maintained from year to year as part of the federal maintenance-of-effort requirement. That rule mandates that states must sustain at least 90 percent of their prior-year matched funding, or risk losing federal funds.19

Defund, Dismantle, and Dismiss: The Second Trump Administration and Adult Education

Limited funding has long constrained the adult education sector’s efforts to support the linguistic, civic, and economic integration of immigrant adults.20 Yet new challenges under the second Trump administration pose a more immediate threat to these efforts.

Most notably, the Trump administration proposed eliminating all federal funding for adult education in its fiscal year (FY) 2026 and FY 2027 budget proposals.21 Although the FY 2026 cut was not ultimately enacted by Congress,22 the administration has clearly stated that it views dedicated federal funding for adult education as ineffective and unnecessary, noting that such funds should be redirected to “programs that more directly prepare students for meaningful careers.”23 Whether or not the FY 2027 cut is enacted remains to be seen.

"Although the FY 2026 cut was not ultimately enacted by Congress, the administration has clearly stated that it views dedicated federal funding for adult education as ineffective and unnecessary."

The administration has also attempted to directly block federal funding for adult education. In July 2025, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) withheld federal adult education funding, along with billions of other education dollars, for roughly a month24 before releasing it after congressional and public pushback.25 OMB’s stated reason for withholding congressionally appropriated dollars was to ensure that the funding supported programs aligned with the administration’s priorities and did not support people who were not legally present in the United States.26

As part of the Trump administration’s larger efforts to block unauthorized immigrants from accessing federal programs, the Department of Education has also sought to impose new immigration status restrictions on WIOA Title II programs, which previously had not been required to verify the immigration status of participants.27 These restrictions exclude not only individuals without status but also many legally present immigrants. Courts have blocked the restrictions in some states, but in many of the 29 states where the restrictions have gone into effect, this is already creating serious implementation challenges for adult education providers.28

The administration’s broader actions on workforce development policy also present a challenge for adult education programs. Using an interagency agreement or IAA, the administration has moved many of the functions of OCTAE to the Department of Labor, as part of its efforts to dismantle the Department of Education and consolidate workforce programs.29 Prior to this move, the administration fired many OCTAE staff who had provided critical technical assistance to states and local providers—depriving the field of a key source of guidance for implementing WIOA Title II programs.30 The administration’s workforce vision, which it brands “Make America Skilled Again,” explicitly states that federal adult education funding is unnecessary.31 Related proposals from the administration and Republicans in Congress to convert all WIOA programs into a single block grant would go further still, eliminating funding for adult education entirely and leaving only a consolidated funding package for workforce programs.32

Exactly what will become of these proposals and policy moves remains to be seen. Some—such as immigration status restrictions—have been partially blocked by legal action. Others, such as the transfer of many OCTAE functions to the Department of Labor, have mostly been completed. The administration’s larger plans to defund adult education programs or merge WIOA programs into a block grant would require congressional action, and thus far Congress has not taken steps to do so. But the scale and pace of change make it clear that states’ own policies and funding decisions will play a decisive role in determining the capacity and even survival of many local adult education programs for immigrant and non-immigrant learners alike.

4 Analyzing State Funding Matches and Vulnerabilities to Federal Funding Cuts

Even if federal funding for adult education largely remains intact over the coming years, the Trump administration’s actions have thrown into sharp relief how much many states rely on federal funds to sustain their adult education systems. These risks are not evenly distributed. They depend largely on states’ own investments in their adult education programs. For some states, federal adult education funds supplement robust state- and locality-funded programming. In these cases, reductions in federal WIOA Title II funds would likely reduce provider capacity but not necessarily threaten programs’ survival. For states that invest relatively little, however, federal cuts could have serious consequences, severely reducing provider capacity and even threatening the elimination of programs in lower-resourced areas. This section examines these vulnerabilities using federal data on adult education programs as well as population data from the American Community Survey.

A. Federal Adult Education Funding by States

Federal WIOA Title II dollars used for adult English instruction are distributed to states primarily through a formula based on the share of adults in each state who are not currently enrolled in school and do not have a high school diploma or equivalent.33 Notably, this formula does not take into account the size of a state’s adult English learner population—a significant gap, given that English instruction is a central purpose of WIOA Title II. Section 243 of WIOA funds IELCE and uses a different formula based on the size of a state’s immigrant population and its growth over the past three years; these funds comprise a much smaller share of total federal allocations.34

The states receiving on average the most federal funding in program years 2018–22 included California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, and Georgia, as displayed in Figure 2. California received far and away the largest amount of annual funding at $105 million on average, followed by Texas at $69 million. At the other end, Wyoming and Vermont received $856,000 and $987,000, respectively. The median level of federal funding for states was $7.19 million annually in program years 2018–22.35

B. States’ Levels of Reliance on Federal Funding

The average amount of annual federal WIOA Title II funding received only shows part of the impact that reductions in federal funding would have. As described in Section 3, states must provide a contribution or match that is at least 25 percent of the total federal and non-federal funding used to implement services under WIOA Title II. Although not required, most states exceed this required level.

Examining the size of state matches for WIOA Title II can consequently provide a better sense of the potential impact of federal funding cuts for adult education. For example, a state providing only a 25-percent contribution could risk losing 75 percent of the funding it receives for WIOA Title II programs should federal funding be eliminated.

Important nuances apply to these data, however (see Box 1). States’ non-federal contributions can draw on multiple sources: state appropriations, local matching funds that providers must dedicate to programs to receive state dollars, and in-kind contributions such as classroom space. Some reported contributions may therefore reflect little or even no directly appropriated state funding. Some states also maintain separate adult education funding they do not report as WIOA Title II match, and local providers typically braid their programming from multiple funding sources—though research suggests that, on average, federal and state dollars together make up roughly 40 percent to more than half of local provider funding.36

Figure 3 shows the share of each state’s average reported WIOA Title II funding that came from the federal government in program years 2018–22. Nine states—Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Virginia—reported receiving an average of 70 percent or more from the federal government. Four more (Georgia, Idaho, Mississippi, and Texas) reported receiving more than two-thirds of their funding for WIOA Title II programs from the federal government. In total, 27 states drew half or more of their WIOA Title II funding from the federal government. The national average was 49 percent. Table 1 shows the full distribution.

Only nine states—Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington—reported receiving less than 25 percent of their funding for WIOA Title II programs from the federal government. These states would be better equipped to weather reductions in federal funding, or even its outright elimination, but they would still feel the impact from cuts. Local program capacity would likely fall, and IELCE programming would still be at risk (see Section 5). In some cases, state policymakers could also choose to reduce or eliminate their own investments in adult education programming should federal funding disappear, whether to shift funds to other programs, reduce state expenditures, or in some cases, align with the Trump administration agenda.

Table 1. Level of Reliance on Federal WIOA Title II Dollars,* by State, Average for Program Years 2018–22

Several states appear particularly at risk of having federal funding cuts limit their adult education systems’ capacity to support the English learning and broader integration of their immigrant populations. These are states that both have large LEP adult populations and report higher reliance on federal funds for their WIOA Title II programs, as Table 2 shows. In particular, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, and Virginia stand out—each draws more than 70 percent of their WIOA Title II funding from federal sources and has an LEP adult population that is among the top 20 largest nationwide.

Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas also have adult LEP populations in the top 20, and they report receiving between 60 and 70 percent of their WIOA Title II funding from federal sources. Four more top-20 states—Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, and North Carolina—report receiving between 50 and 60 percent of their average WIOA Title II funding from the federal government.

Because these states contribute relatively little of their own funding, serious federal cuts or withholding could wipe out a large share of their total adult education funding. The precise impact would depend on the local provider base, additional sources of state and local funding, and other factors that are not visible solely through NRS data. However, in lower-resourced areas, including rural regions where philanthropic and alternate funding are thin, program closures would be a real possibility.

5 The IELCE Program at Risk

As discussed in Section 3, WIOA Title II funds two programs that provide integration support for immigrants: English Language Acquisition and IELCE, which combines English instruction, civics, and workforce services to support immigrants’ economic, linguistic, and civic integration. IELCE programs are funded either under Section 231(b) or Section 243 of WIOA Title II; only Section 243 programs receive dedicated funding, and they carry additional requirements.37 That structure and dedicated funding, however, put them at greater risk from federal funding cuts.

Section 243 IELCE programs aim to combine English and civics instruction with workforce training and preparation to help participants learn English and prepare for “unsubsidized employment in in-demand industries and occupations that lead to economic self-sufficiency.”38 To do so, programs must provide access to Integrated Education and Training (IET), a model that bundles contextualized English instruction and workforce development activities into a single, concurrent program helping participants to obtain specific skills, credentials, or jobs for in-demand local industries.39 For example, an IELCE program might seek to fill workforce shortages in a local region’s health-care sector by creating an IET that combines training to become a certified nursing assistant with English and civics instruction contextualized to prepare immigrants to work in the U.S. health system.

Federal funding and WIOA requirements created and have largely driven IELCE programming since 2014. Section 243 sets aside 12 percent of federal funding for adult education annually—$85,854,600 in FY 2025—to support IELCE programs. This funding is distributed based on the size and growth of states’ immigrant population, with each state receiving a minimum of $60,000 (see Figure 4).40 Only Montana, Vermont, and Wyoming received this minimum amount in FY 2025.41

Although the initial implementation of IELCE under Section 243 was challenging for states and local providers, programs have since matured into innovative models that support integration and fill critical workforce shortages.42 These programs have also developed important approaches to combining English instruction, integration knowledge, and workforce activities into a single program while bridging gaps between the workforce development and adult education systems. Nationwide, the program served 308,150 individuals in program year 2023, with 21,969 directly participating in IET activities.43

Despite this success and expansion, states’ IELCE programs are particularly at risk should there be significant cuts to federal funding for WIOA Title II. Because federal requirements and dedicated funding drive the program, it is unclear whether states would continue these programs should that funding be eliminated, withheld, reduced significantly, or become part of an overall block grant. Some states might decide to end the program, given the relatively small amount of funding they receive and the challenges associated with administering small pots of federal funds.

The loss of the IELCE program would be a serious blow to national immigrant integration efforts. Despite its relatively small level of funding, the program is one of the few nationwide programs that is specifically dedicated to supporting the civic, linguistic, and economic integration of immigrant adults. IELCE programs also fill in-demand jobs in local industries and assist internationally trained professionals in putting their skills to work, which helps avoid individual and societal losses from skill underutilization.44 Elimination of this funding would upend many promising program models across the country that combine English instruction and workforce development activities, a serious loss given how heavily immigrant workers are represented in many key industries.45

6 Opportunities for States to Advance Adult English Acquisition and Workforce Development

The challenges facing WIOA Title II programs under the second Trump administration have exposed long-standing vulnerabilities in the federal-state partnership that sustains adult education across the country. They have also created an opening for states to take stock of their systems and chart a stronger course for serving adult learners, U.S. born and immigrant alike.

"The challenges facing WIOA Title II programs ... have also created an opening for states to take stock of their systems and chart a stronger course for serving adult learners, U.S. born and immigrant alike."

The most immediate threat is a reduction, withholding, or elimination of federal funding for adult education. As the July 2025 OMB withholding demonstrated, the threat may not come through the normal federal appropriations process and instead from unilateral actions taken by the administration. A funding reduction, particularly a severe one, would deprive states and local programs of vital resources to support immigrants in learning English and meeting integration goals, such as building in-demand skills or finding higher wage employment. The impact would not be limited to immigrant learners. Hundreds of thousands of U.S.-born adults seeking to attain a high school equivalency, prepare for higher-wage employment, develop greater digital literacy, advance their literacy and numeracy skills, and support their children’s education would also face a loss of services. Cuts to federal funding would mean fewer open slots for learners, fewer teachers, and fewer programs. Non-federally funded adult education programs would also feel the pressure as displaced students seek alternatives.

As this analysis has shown, the states most exposed to this risk have large English instruction needs but have invested relatively few state resources to address them. More broadly, 27 states report receiving half or more of their WIOA Title II program funding from the federal government. For some, risk could be mitigated by investments they have made in adult English acquisition outside of their WIOA Title II programs, though in other cases NRS data may reflect an undercount their actual exposure (see Box 1).

Even states that invest relatively large amounts in adult education would still feel the loss of federal funding. Should the federal government sharply reduce or eliminate its WIOA Title II contributions, policymakers in some states with relatively high investment levels might also reduce their own program funding in response.

In this new context, state and local leaders—inside and outside government—should examine their jurisdiction’s situation in greater detail and begin to map out how to shore up their systems or local programs to ensure adult learners, including immigrants, can continue to access English instruction and key workforce services that adult education providers deliver. In most cases, states will likely need to increase or re-apportion funding, but they can also take steps to ensure that their investments strategically build system capacities to serve learners, even in the face of federal unpredictability.

States could develop new supports for English acquisition and immigrant integration through four approaches: increasing state funding contributed to WIOA Title II programs; creating new funding streams outside WIOA Title II; leveraging other existing funding sources; and investing strategically in local providers to build capacity. Each is explored below.

A. Increasing State Funding Contributions for WIOA Title II Programs

To shore up their adult education systems against federal funding cuts, the most straightforward option is for states to increase the amount of funding they contribute to their WIOA Title II programs. This would mean investing in existing systems and programs, avoiding the need to develop new funding streams or potentially implement new state programs to support adult English acquisition. Increased state contributions would supplement the impact of federal funds (as intended by WIOA), expand the capacity of existing programs, and maintain capacity in the face of federal cuts.

States could also direct additional funds to ensure Section 243 IELCE programs can weather any changes in federal funding. These programs not only deliver valuable services but are also important models for integrating English instruction and workforce activities that states can learn from and expand.46 Given the relatively small amount of federal funding that IELCE programs receive, states should be able to supplement them with state dollars with sufficient advance planning.

While straightforward, this approach also has limitations. Additional state contributions would be locked into the federal WIOA Title II program framework and add to the state’s future financial exposure under the law’s maintenance-of-effort requirements. This would also leave state policymakers with limited flexibility to use those funds for purposes or services outside of those allowed under WIOA Title II, given that funds would have to follow WIOA program and performance requirements, which bring their own limitations.47 Finally, for states where immigration status restrictions have been implemented for WIOA Title II-funded programs (or potentially will be in the future, once legal challenges have been resolved), new state contributions would also be subject to these restrictions and exclude many lawfully present immigrants from participating in programs.

B. Creating New Funding Streams to Support English Acquisition and Immigrant Integration

New investments in adult education could provide states with an opportunity to craft programs and funding streams that help immigrants learn English, upskill, fill in-demand jobs, and achieve other integration milestones. By setting aside funds outside of their formal WIOA Title II match, and thus outside WIOA requirements, states could more flexibly address the learning and workforce needs of adult English learners and adult learners more broadly. This could include experimenting with innovative program models without exposing providers to extensive federal reporting requirements or the risk of those novel programs’ outcomes counting against evaluation of their WIOA Title II programs by the federal government. New funding streams would also not be subject to immigration status restrictions that now apply to WIOA Title II programs in many states.

Building on lessons from existing IELCE Section 243 programs and other related efforts, states could invest in programs that pair English instruction with workforce development activities. Such investments could include grant programs that support contextualized English instruction for workers, such as workplace literacy or IET programs. New programs could also be tailored to important local or statewide industries with large numbers of immigrant workers. For example, Massachusetts invested an additional $10 million to broadly support vocational English programs in 2025, while California has developed its ELL Healthcare Pathways Program to target an important industry for the state.48

States could also create programs within their adult education systems that more directly aim to support adult English learners with lower levels of formal education as well as parents of young and school-age children not seeking to work outside the home, two populations that can be difficult for providers to serve under WIOA’s performance requirements.49 These investments need not duplicate WIOA programming; instead they could more directly address the needs of workers, parents, or other adult learners, while also creating room for innovation.

New investments will admittedly be challenging for states facing budget constraints in coming years. Yet these investments could be relatively modest, given the small share of state budgets currently used to support adult education. In some cases, states that contribute above the WIOA minimum contribution could redirect some of those funds into more flexible state-managed programming to meet important adult learner needs, a proposal explored in previous MPI research.50 However, such an approach would only be workable for states that contribute more than the minimum required match of 25 percent to WIOA Title II programs. States would also need to ensure this funding remains in their adult education system in the long term, continuing to support local providers and the learners they serve.

C. Leveraging Other Funding Streams to Support Adult English Learners

States could also partially reprogram or utilize funding from other streams to help support adult English acquisition and integration. In particular, workforce development funds, which are generally more plentiful than those dedicated to adult education, could be utilized to support immigrant workers learning English, who also comprise notable shares of all workers in many critical industries.51 For example, states could use Incumbent Worker Training dollars intended for upskilling workers who are already employed to support workers in learning contextualized English that is relevant for their jobs and needed for career advancement. States could also support young immigrant adults with WIOA Youth dollars52 or build more effective bridge programs that move adult English learners into pre-apprenticeship or apprenticeship programs.

States could also look beyond the workforce development sphere for support for adults learning English, including to new or existing investments in early childhood systems and digital literacy. Early childhood systems in many states are undergoing significant expansion, and modest amounts of those funds could be tapped to support the engagement and learning of immigrant parents of young children; for example, family literacy or other parent-focused educational programs could help support the two-generational success of both immigrants and their children.53 Similarly, states could leverage portions of new or existing investments in digital literacy and digital skills programs to support local programs serving adult English learners.

D. Investing Strategically in Adult Education Providers’ Capacity and Program Sustainability

States could also seek to shore up existing systems and programs with targeted investments of flexible funding to support local programs or particular regions. For example, states could devote additional funding to adult English programs in under-resourced areas such as rural regions where federal funding cuts may not be offset by additional local funding. Such investment, whether through or outside WIOA Title II, could seek to increase the level of funding that local programs receive per student, boost the hiring of full-time instructors, address growing class sizes, or develop provider administrative capacity. New York City offers a model: the city uses its NYC Adult Literacy Pilot Project, now known as Adult Literacy Forward, to provide supplemental funding to support program capacity and the development of adult education providers, many of which serve primarily adult English learners.54

States could also develop special supplemental funding initiatives to help adult education providers and community colleges build greater capacity to serve internationally trained professionals with in-demand but unrecognized credentials—a population whose underutilization represents a loss for both individuals and local labor markets.

7 Conclusion

Disruptions to federally funded programs, including WIOA Title II, seem likely to linger for years. Addressing the impacts of federal funding cuts to Medicaid and other major programs will also likely consume significant amounts of state funding in coming years. Consequently, states may not be able to simply wait out the current moment for a stable federal environment to return.

Yet as this report shows, disruptions in the long-standing federal-state partnership that supports adult education—and by extension English acquisition and immigrant integration—also offer states a chance to develop new solutions to meet the needs of adult English learners. These solutions do not necessarily need to follow the same playbook as the current system to meet the educational and workforce needs of immigrant adults. Instead, states can chart their own course, drawing on IELCE and other successful programs to design and build something better—programming that supports adult learners and workers more effectively, fills the workforce needs of employers, and strengthens local communities.

"States can chart their own course, drawing on IELCE and other successful programs to design and build something better—programming that supports adult learners and workers more effectively, fills the workforce needs of employers, and strengthens local communities."

Appendix. State-by-State Data