Over the past year, schools across the country have faced more than $12 billion in federal education funding disruptions. Grants have been terminated mid-cycle. Programs serving low-income students have received non-continuation notices. And the uncertainty has left administrators scrambling to figure out what’s actually stable.
For school leaders responsible for after-school programming, the question is direct: what’s safe, what’s at risk, and what should you do now?
What’s Actually Happening with Federal Education Funding
Congress recently passed a budget that largely maintains federal education funding at 2025 levels — rejecting the Trump administration’s proposed cuts to Title I, IDEA, and other key programs. That’s good news.
But there’s a separate problem: administrative grant terminations. The Department of Education has terminated dozens of individual grants mid-cycle — particularly grants that referenced diversity, equity, or support for undocumented students. These terminations are happening even when the underlying program’s budget line survived Congress.
The result is a confusing situation where the headline budget looks stable, but individual programs are losing funding without warning.
Which After-School Funding Streams Are Most Stable
California: ELOP and ASES (Most Stable)
California’s Expanded Learning Opportunities Program (ELOP) is state-funded and not subject to federal budget decisions. It provides per-pupil funding for expanded learning time for grades K-6 at Title I schools. This is currently one of the most reliable funding sources for after-school enrichment in the country.
ASES (After School Education and Safety) is similarly state-funded and stable. If your school is ASES-funded, you’re largely insulated from the federal volatility.
21st CCLC (Stable at the Budget Level — Watch Individual Grants)
The 21st Century Community Learning Centers grant program survived the congressional budget process at roughly its 2025 allocation. However, new grant applications may face more scrutiny around language related to equity or diversity. Programs currently funded through 21st CCLC should be in good shape through their grant period — but renewal applications may face a changed landscape.
Title I and LCAP (Largely Stable, but Monitor)
Title I funding survived Congress largely intact. LCAP is California-controlled. Both can be used to fund enrichment programming and are not directly at risk from the current wave of administrative terminations.
What School Leaders Should Do Right Now
- Audit your funding mix. If more than 60% of your after-school programming budget comes from a single federal grant, you’re exposed. Diversify across state (ELOP, ASES), local (LCAP), and private sources now — before a disruption forces the conversation.
- Review your grant language. If you have active federal grants, review the program descriptions for language that could trigger administrative scrutiny. This isn’t about changing your program — it’s about knowing your risk exposure.
- Build provider relationships that flex. The best enrichment partnerships aren’t built on a single grant source. Look for providers who can work within multiple funding frameworks and who have experience operating across different grant types.
- Document your outcomes. Programs that can demonstrate clear student impact data are harder to cut and easier to fund. If you’re not already tracking attendance, skill progression, and parent satisfaction in your after-school programs, start now.
The Bigger Picture
Federal funding volatility is a real risk — but it’s also an opportunity for schools to build more resilient program models. The districts that navigate this best are the ones that never relied entirely on any single funding stream and built partnerships with providers who can operate flexibly.
If you’re evaluating your after-school programming and want to understand how ELOP, ASES, and 21st CCLC can work together to fund a strong enrichment model, Kodely works with school administrators to build that structure. We’ve helped hundreds of schools in California and New York align enrichment programming to their available funding — and build programs that survive budget cycles.