To address the education needs of these children and youth, the Title I, Part D Neglected or Delinquent Program authorizes two programs 1 that provide grants to states to enable them to award subgrants to state agencies (SAs) (Subpart 1) and local education agencies (LEAs) (i.e., school districts) (Subpart 2) that operate or allocate funds to justice and child welfare facilities to improve education services and to give system-involved youth the opportunity to meet the same challenging state academic standards as their non-involved peers. In the 2015-16 school year, the Part D programs provided nearly $162 million to serve more than 340,000 children and youth in over 2,600 state and locally operated facilities and programs (U.S. Department of Education 2017). To gain a better understanding of how state and local agencies and facilities use Part D funds for and in support of education and transition services and supports for youth who are neglected or delinquent, this study included both nationally representative surveys and in-depth case studies. Surveys were completed by Part D program coordinators at the state, district, and local facility levels. The study also included case study site visits in five states receiving state and local Part D funds, including interviews with agency and facility administrators, principals, and instructional and support staff. Select highlights from this study include: (1) State educational agency (SEA) coordinators most frequently reported focusing on creating and reviewing Part D funding applications, supporting federal data collection, and conducting program compliance monitoring; they less frequently focused on providing training and technical assistance to subgrantees or involvement in academic instruction in facilities; (2) In addition to core and supplemental academic programming, nearly all Part D-funded state facilities and roughly half of local facilities offered career and technical education (CTE); (3) Less than 25 percent of all students had an existing transition plan from a previous facility or placement and entered a state or local facility with an existing transition plan; more than half had a transition plan developed while in placement; and (4) Roughly half of state and local facilities could not track any students after exit. Those that could track students most often tracked high school equivalency credentials earned and high school graduation rates. [For "Results in Brief," see ED594692. For Volume 2 (appendices), see ED594695.]