Background: The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA; 2015) constituted a reauthorization of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and replaced the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001. ESSA, although still recognizing the need of standardized testing, diverged from NCLB by transferring a significant amount of power over educational goals and standards from the federal government to states and districts. Title II, Part A (referred to as Title II)--the Supporting Effective Instruction State Grant Program--is the "most significant source of federal funding supporting professional learning for educators and leaders at the school, district, and state levels" (Learning Forward, 2024). The goals of this initiative are as follows: 1) to enhance student performance in accordance with rigorous state academic standards; 2) to enhance the caliber and efficacy of teachers, principals, and other educational leaders; 3) to increase the quantity of teachers, principals, and other educational leaders who effectively enhance student academic achievement in schools; and 4) to ensure that low-income and minority students have increased opportunities to access effective teachers, principals, and other educational leaders (20 USC 661). Expenditures in human capital, namely investments in teacher and leader professional development, have been shown to be advantageous for organizational success. So, professional development funded by Title II may play a role in the professional growth of teachers and principals (Ost, 2014) as well as increased achievement of students. Since the enactment of Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2015, there have been some modifications to state and district level policy that have created opportunities for professional learning among educators. As an example, the Delaware Department of Education (2024) uses Title II funds to offer a slate of standards-aligned professional development opportunities for educators. However, ESSA authorized a lower funding level for Title II than did NCLB. Moreover, yearly Title II allocations across all states have yet to meet level of authorized funding which indicates that educator professional development efforts remain underfunded relative to what ESSA recommends. Professional development--particularly for leaders of color--may make a different in capacity and retention and therefore for the outcomes and experiences of students of color in schools (Bailes & Guthery, 2023; Perrone, 2022). The matter of reducing the budget for Title II monies remains a topic of discussion. Last year, House Appropriations Committee Republicans proposed a draft bill (H.R.5894 - 118th Congress, 20232024) suggesting the elimination of Title II. Despite the continuous discussion around Title II, there is a dearth of information and research about budget allocation and its impact. Purpose and Research Questions: ESSA emphasizes evidence-based interventions in educator professional development in implementing policies related to funding. This study examines how Title II funding has been spent state-by-state from SY2018 to SY2021 (publicly available data), including the specific allocations, types of professional development (PD) offered, and vendor types. We will also examine the district-level expenditures in one mid-Atlantic state. Title II funds are uniquely available to support educator professional development, so it is critical that we understand how those funds are spent (Young et al., 2017). We address the following questions: R1) How has Title II funding been allocated state-by-state from SY2018 to SY2021? R2) What kinds of professional learning experiences (e.g., induction, continuing education) do Title II funds facilitate in each state? R3) How and to what kinds of vendors to states allocate Title II funds? R4) How is Title II funding in one mid-Atlantic state related to observable district characteristics (e.g., size, additional funding, PD offering types) and principal characteristics (e.g., ratings, retention)? Data Sources and Analysis: The research will leverage publicly available from 4 years of reports from the U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) on "State and District Use of Title II, Part A Funds." Additionally, published documents from the websites of individual states will be utilized to gain a comprehensive understanding of Title II funding distribution at each state. For these data, we will also draw on both data available publicly through USDOE and on our own original dataset of spending allocation types, vendors, and professional learning types. A data-sharing partnership with one mid-Atlantic state education agency (SEA) permits us access to district-level Title II funding allocations. These data will allow for a detailed descriptive analysis of funding allocation within the state as well as variations by district type, size, and in the context of other funding sources. We intend, at this time, to engage primarily descriptive analyses but we assert that these constitute a contribution because, to our knowledge, such descriptive portraits are not currently available. These methods allow us, in particular, to examine the ways in which allocations differ relative to state populations, which may allow us to address particular issues of equity in the distribution or use of funds. Implications: The study is expected to provide new insights into the use of Title II funds for use in facilitating educators' professional development. Decisions about federal funding are critical to developing and sustaining a high-quality, diverse, and equity-centered educator workforce and therefore to improving school quality and human resources practices. In the face of rapid change in educator and student demography, expanding expectations of educators, and increasing pedagogical complexity, understanding the use and value of Title II funding will support policymakers efforts to equity educators through professional development opportunities.