In a year during which states saw an immense amount of instability and uncertainty related to federal funding for data, research, and evidence-building, the recently passed FY26 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies funding bill offers a few glimmers of hope. Despite the Institute of Education Sciences getting a small haircut (of about $3.5 million), core state data infrastructure programs received level funding.
We’re encouraged to see that the bill includes:
The same funding as prior years for Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS) and Workforce Data Quality Initiative grant programs, $28.5 million and $6 million respectively.
Why it matters: SLDSs are primarily supported with state funds, but federal dollars are important supplements that allow states to make upgrades and modernize their systems.
Language directing the Department of Education (ED) to maintain the staffing levels needed to fulfill statutory programmatic obligations. The bill also prohibits the agencies covered by the bill, such as ED and the Department of Labor (DOL), from unilaterally cutting, defunding, or redirecting program dollars as occurred under the continuing resolution last year.
Why it matters: Stability is critical to the success of state data efforts. States rely on their federal counterparts for technical assistance and answers to basic questions about how they can use their grant funding. Without staff at ED or DOL to answer questions or provide assistance, including making sure appropriated funds get out the door, states’ work slows down or even halts.
Language stating that ED has “no authorities” to transfer duties to other agencies under existing law and it continues this existing prohibition on transferring funds to other agencies unless authorized by law.
Why it matters: Again, stability. Moving functions, but not authority, to another agency can increase bureaucracy and make it harder for states to work in seamless partnership with the federal government. As a result, the work states do for their communities can suffer.
These provisions combined—level funding to continue core data programs, directives to ED in particular to do the jobs delegated to it in statute, and prohibitions on cutting or moving funds at the administration’s whim—send a clear signal that the stability of these programs is important. That should give states some hope that the funding they rely on to build their data infrastructure will continue to flow uninterrupted this year.
