Chapter 5: Concentration Grants—Formula Analyses

The Concentration Grants program is the smallest of the four Title I grants. To qualify for a Concentration Grant, a school district must meet the Basic Grant eligibility requirements and have at least 6,500 formula-eligible children ages 5–17, or more than 15 percent of its 5- to 17-year-old population must be formula eligible. Concentration Grants accounted for approximately $1.3 billion (9 percent) of Title I funds in fiscal year 2015 (FY 15) (table 1.A). Concentration Grants had the smallest number of formula-eligible children (10.1 million), and the average Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child was $134 in FY 15 (all allocations herein are averages).

Top

Formula Alternatives

Concentration Grants share some of the same formula provisions as Basic Grants but have additional eligibility provisions designed to provide higher levels of funding to school districts with large numbers or large percentages of formula-eligible children (see Introduction, Methodology for Allocating Federal Title I Funds). In this chapter, a larger range of formula alternatives are examined compared with the Basic Grants chapter due to the additional eligibility provisions in the Concentration Grant formula. Similar to Basic Grants and the other Title I grants, allocations were computed using the formula-eligibility criteria only as well as alternatives that exclude the state per pupil expenditure (SPPE), state minimum, and hold harmless provisions. When only the formula-eligibility criteria were considered, the allocation computations were essentially made on a per eligible child basis, so the differences in Basic Grant allocations and Concentration Grant allocations among districts of various types were smaller than those observed under other alternatives. There are no weighting provisions for Concentration Grants as there are for Targeted Grants and Education Finance Incentive Grants (EFIG). When the SPPE provision was removed from the formula, the same expenditure per student was used for each state, and there were no minimum and maximum thresholds. In general, removal of the SPPE provision meant that states with lower expenditures per student received higher allocations, while states with higher expenditures per student received lower allocations. Removing the state minimum provision meant that states with smaller populations typically received lower allocations since there was no minimum threshold on funding levels.

The Concentration Grant formula includes two eligibility criteria that are different from the other Title I grants. The Concentration Grant formula has no minimum number of students required to receive an allocation, while the other grant formulas require a minimum number of students (10) in order to receive an allocation. For Concentration Grants, districts with more than 6,500 formula-eligible children receive an allocation regardless of their poverty level. Rather than requiring 5 percent or more (as is the case for Targeted Grants and EFIG) or 2 percent or more (as is the case for Basic Grants) of the 5- to 17-year-old population to be formula eligible, Concentration Grants require more than 15 percent of the population to be formula eligible in order to receive an allocation. These two eligibility criteria, which are specific to Concentration Grants, are examined in this chapter. Removal of the provision that requires the number of formula-eligible children to exceed 6,500 (herein referred to as the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision) reduced the allocations for large districts with relatively low poverty levels (and slightly increased allocations for districts with higher poverty levels). Removal of the provision that requires the percentage of formula-eligible children to exceed 15 percent of total 5- to 17-year-old population (herein referred to as the 15 percent formula-eligible children provision) increased allocations for large districts that benefited from the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision.

The hold harmless provision limits the amount of a decrease for a district from one year to the next due to population changes. It is important to note that unless a formula provision is removed in conjunction with the hold harmless provision, the long-term impact of removing the other provision may not be fully reflected in the resulting allocation. So, when a provision such as the state minimum provision is removed from the formula and the hold harmless provision is maintained, the districts in the state are limited to a reduction of no more than 15 percent per year. The national Title I funding level was the same across all alternatives. Since the allocation was based on a fixed appropriation amount, increases or decreases for some districts had to be matched by increases or decreases for others. For example, maintaining hold harmless amounts for some districts meant that some other districts with increases in formula-eligible children did not receive additional funding.

Two combinations of provision removals are analyzed in this chapter, both including removal of the hold harmless provision. The first combination looks at removal of the hold harmless and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions. The second combination looks at removal of the SPPE, hold harmless, and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions.

Top

Formula-Eligibility Criteria Only

When only the formula-eligibility criteria were considered for Concentration Grants, the ranges across most school district characteristics remained small compared with the larger differences for Targeted Grants and Education Finance Incentive Grants (EFIG). For the formula-eligibility criteria for Targeted Grants and EFIG, the number weighting and percentage weighting provisions were retained, which contributed to larger differences for these grants. When only the formula-eligibility criteria were considered, the range in the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child across states was narrower than the range for the final allocations. The hold harmless provision was not considered for the formula-eligibility criteria only allocation.

When only the formula-eligibility criteria were considered, the Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child was $134 for most states, with slightly higher allocations for some states (up to $137) (table 5.A). Compared with the final allocations, when only the formula-eligibility criteria were considered, the largest decreases were in North Dakota (-$454) and Wyoming (-$736); the largest increases were in Tennessee (+$22), Utah (+$22), and Florida (+$23), the three states with the lowest final allocations. Overall, 29 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico had decreases in their allocations compared with the final allocations, while 21 states had no changes or increases.

When only the formula-eligibility criteria were considered, the Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child was $134 for most locales, with a slightly higher allocation of $136 for fringe towns (table 5.B; figure 5.1). Compared with the final allocations, when only the formula-eligibility criteria were considered, midsize suburban areas had the largest increase (+$7), and remote rural areas had the largest decrease (-$17).

---

Figure 5.1. Title I, Part A Concentration Grant final allocation per formula-eligible child and allocation when only formula-eligibility criteria were considered, by school district characteristics: 2015

¹ To create the poverty quarters, all school districts are ranked, from the highest to the lowest, according to their percentage of formula-eligible 5- to 17-year-old children. Districts are divided into quarters based on the percentage of all 5- to 17-year-old children they serve, such that each quarter includes districts serving 25 percent of the 5- to 17-year-old children in the United States (including Puerto Rico).
² Concentration Grants are provided to districts in which the number of formula-eligible children is at least 6,500 or 15 percent of the district’s 5- to 17-year-old population.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Title I Allocation File, 2015; National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Local Education Agency Universe Survey,” 2013–14, Provisional Version 1a.

---

When only the formula-eligibility criteria were considered, districts of almost every population size in every poverty quarter received the same Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ($134). The allocation was slightly higher for the second-smallest districts in the second-lowest poverty quarter ($135). Compared with the final allocations, applying only the formula-eligibility criteria resulted in the largest increase (+$17) for the largest districts in the second-highest poverty quarter and the largest decrease (-$41) for the smallest districts in the second-lowest poverty quarter.

When only the formula-eligibility criteria were considered, the Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child was $134 for districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of all sizes. This range of less than $1 among the districts of different population sizes contrasts with the range of $65 for the final allocations. Compared with the final allocations, applying only the formula-eligibility criteria resulted in the largest decrease (-$60) for districts with population of less than 300 (the smallest districts); other districts with populations under 10,000 had smaller decreases. In contrast, districts with a population of 10,000 to 24,999 had an increase of $1 in their Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child, and districts with a population of 25,000 or more had an increase of $5.

Top

Removal of State per Pupil Expenditure (SPPE)

When the state per pupil expenditure (SPPE) provision was removed from the formula, the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child increased in lower-spending states and decreased in higher-spending states. It is important to note that this analysis retained the hold harmless provision at the school district level, which limited the reduction of funding in a specific district to no more than 15 percent in a given year. The long-term impact of removing the SPPE provision was not fully reflected in this analysis. The hold harmless provision moderated the long-term impact of removing the SPPE provision by limiting the impact on a district to a maximum decline of 15 percent of its Title I funds from the preceding year. Additional declines of up to 15 percent per year could occur until the formula provisions were fully met for a district. Due to the zero-sum nature of Title I allocations, funds from each year’s decline were redistributed to other districts eligible for additional funds.

Compared with the final allocations, when the SPPE provision was removed from the formula, the largest increases in the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child were in Utah (+$10) and Florida (+$9), and the largest decreases were in Massachusetts (-$25) and New Jersey (-$19) (table 5.A). The allocations ranged from $120 in Florida and Nevada to $588 in North Dakota and $865 in Wyoming, a difference between the lowest and the highest of $746 or 623 percent. This difference was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($761 or 691 percent). Overall, 29 states had decreases in their allocations compared with the final allocations, while 21 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico had no changes or increases.

When the SPPE provision was removed from the formula, remote rural areas received a higher Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ($150) than all other locales, which ranged from $127 for midsize cities and $128 for midsize suburban areas to $143 for fringe towns (table 5.B; figure 5.2). The difference between the allocations for remote rural areas and midsize cities was $23 or 18 percent, which was similar to the difference for the final allocations ($24 or 19 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the SPPE provision was removed, the differences in the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child by locale were relatively small, with no differences over $4.

---

Figure 5.2. Title I, Part A Concentration Grant final allocation per formula-eligible child and allocation with state per pupil expenditure (SPPE) provision removed, by school district characteristics: 2015

¹ To create the poverty quarters, all school districts are ranked, from the highest to the lowest, according to their percentage of formula-eligible 5- to 17-year-old children. Districts are divided into quarters based on the percentage of all 5- to 17-year-old children they serve, such that each quarter includes districts serving 25 percent of the 5- to 17-year-old children in the United States (including Puerto Rico).
² A state’s adjusted SPPE cannot be less than 32 percent of the U.S. average SPPE or more than 48 percent of the U.S. average SPPE.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Title I Allocation File, 2015; National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Local Education Agency Universe Survey,” 2013–14, Provisional Version 1a.

---

When the SPPE provision was removed from the formula, the lowest poverty quarter received the highest Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ($200). Districts with higher poverty rates had lower allocations. For example, the Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child was lowest for the second-highest poverty quarter ($125). The allocation for the lowest poverty quarter was $76 or 61 percent higher than the allocation for the second-highest poverty quarter, which was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($93 or 75 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the SPPE provision was removed, the Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child was $16 lower for the lowest poverty quarter and $2 lower for the second-lowest poverty quarter; in contrast, there was an increase of $1 for the second-highest poverty quarter and an increase of less than $1 for the highest poverty quarter.

Similar to the final allocations, when the SPPE provision was removed from the formula, there was no consistent pattern regarding Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child within the poverty quarters with respect to district population size. The largest districts in the highest poverty quarter had a higher allocation ($141) than districts of other population sizes in that quarter, which ranged from $131 for the second-smallest districts to $134 for the second-largest districts. In contrast, in the second-lowest poverty quarter, the largest districts ($124) had a lower Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child than districts of other population sizes in that quarter, which ranged from $140 for the second-largest districts to $167 for the smallest districts. Compared with the final allocations, removal of the SPPE provision resulted in the largest increase (+$6) for the largest districts in the second-highest poverty quarter and the largest decrease (-$16) for the largest districts in the lowest poverty quarter.

Similar to the pattern for the final allocations, when the SPPE provision was removed from the formula, the Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child for districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) was higher than for districts of other population sizes. Similar to the pattern for the final allocations, districts of larger population sizes had progressively lower allocations. The highest Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child was for districts with a population of less than 300 ($191), and the second-highest allocation was for districts with a population of 300 to 599 ($158). The lowest allocation was for districts with a population of 25,000 or more (the largest districts) ($131). The difference in the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the district population sizes with the highest and lowest allocations was $60, which was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($65). Compared with the final allocations, removal of the SPPE provision resulted in lower allocations for districts with populations under 10,000 (ranging from -$2 to -$4) and a higher allocation for districts with a population of 25,000 or more (+$2).

Top

Removal of State Minimum

The state minimum provision provides a minimum allocation threshold for each state. When the state minimum provision was removed from the formula, the Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child did not increase by more than $1 in any state but decreased substantially for the 3 states receiving state minimum allocations (figure I.4). It is important to note that this analysis retained the hold harmless provision at the school district level, which limited the reduction of funding in a specific district to no more than 15 percent in a given year. The long-term impact of removing the state minimum provision was not fully reflected in this analysis. The hold harmless provision moderated the long-term impact of removing the state minimum provision by limiting the impact on a district to a maximum decline of 15 percent of its Title I funds from the preceding year. Additional declines of up to 15 percent per year could occur until the formula provisions were fully met for a district. Due to the zero-sum nature of Title I allocations, funds from each year’s decline would be redistributed to other districts eligible for additional funds.

When the state minimum provision was removed from the formula, North Dakota’s Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child decreased by $37, South Dakota’s decreased by $26 and Vermont’s decreased by $19 (table 5.A). The allocations ranged from $110 in Florida and $112 in Tennessee, Nevada, Utah, and North Carolina to $871 in Wyoming, a difference of $761 or 690 percent, which was nearly the same as the difference for the final allocations ($761 or 691 percent). Overall, 3 states had decreases in their allocations compared with the final allocations, while 47 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico had no changes or increases.

Similar to the final allocations, when the state minimum provision was removed from the formula, remote rural areas received a higher Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ($150) than the other locales, which ranged from $127 for midsize suburban areas and midsize cities to $145 for small suburban areas (table 5.B; figure 5.3). The difference between the allocations for remote rural areas and midsize suburban areas and cities was $23 or 18 percent, which was nearly the same as the difference for the final allocations ($24 or 19 percent). Compared with the final allocations, remote rural areas had the largest decrease (-$1); the changes for all other locales were less than $1.

---

Figure 5.3. Title I, Part A Concentration Grant final allocation per formula-eligible child and allocation with state minimum provision removed, by school district characteristics: 2015

¹ To create the poverty quarters, all school districts are ranked, from the highest to the lowest, according to their percentage of formula-eligible 5- to 17-year-old children. Districts are divided into quarters based on the percentage of all 5- to 17-year-old children they serve, such that each quarter includes districts serving 25 percent of the 5- to 17-year-old children in the United States (including Puerto Rico).
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Title I Allocation File, 2015; National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Local Education Agency Universe Survey,” 2013–14, Provisional Version 1a.

---

When the state minimum provision was removed from the formula, the lowest poverty quarter received the highest Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ($217). Districts with higher poverty rates had lower allocations. For example, the allocation was lowest for the second-highest poverty quarter ($124). Compared with the final allocations, when the state minimum provision was removed, changes in the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child for all the poverty quarters were less than $1. When the state minimum provision was removed, the difference between the allocation for the second-highest poverty quarter ($124) and lowest poverty quarter ($217) was $93 or 75 percent, which was the same as the difference for the final allocations.

Similar to the final allocations, when the state minimum provision was removed from the formula, there was no consistent pattern regarding Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child within the poverty quarters with respect to district population size. The largest districts in the highest poverty quarter had a higher allocation ($140) than districts of other population sizes in that quarter, which ranged from $132 in the second-smallest districts to $133 in the smallest and second-largest districts. In contrast, in the second-lowest poverty quarter, the largest districts had a lower Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ($120) than districts of other population sizes in that quarter, which ranged from $139 in the second-largest districts to $175 in the smallest districts.

Compared with the final allocations, when the state minimum provision was removed from the formula, there was a less than $1 difference in the Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child for almost every population size in every poverty quarter. The only exception was a reduction of $1 in the allocation for the smallest districts in the second-lowest poverty quarter. The range in Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child ($8) between the largest and smallest districts in the highest poverty quarter was the same as the range for the final allocations.

Similar to the pattern for the final allocations, when the state minimum provision was removed from the formula, the highest Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child was for districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) ($192), and the second-highest allocation was for districts with a population of 300 to 599 ($161). Also similar to the pattern for the final allocations, districts of larger population sizes had progressively lower allocations; the lowest allocation was for districts with a population of 25,000 or more (the largest districts) ($129). After removal of the state minimum provision, the difference in the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the district population sizes with the highest and lowest allocations was $63, which was slightly smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($65). Compared with the final allocations, removal of the state minimum provision resulted in slightly lower allocations for districts with populations under 5,000 (ranging from decreases of $1 to $2). Districts with a population of 5,000 to 9,999 and districts with a population of 25,000 or more had increases of less than $1.

Top

Removal of Hold Harmless

Removal of the hold harmless provision allows current formula provisions and current distributions of formula-eligible children to have a full impact on the allocations; with the hold harmless provision, the allocations are limited by the maximum yearly reductions. Removal of the hold harmless provision permits reductions of over 15 percent for school districts that may have relatively large decreases (or smaller increases) in the number of formula-eligible children compared with other districts.

After removal of the hold harmless provision from the formula, the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child ranged from $116 in 12 states and Puerto Rico to $588 in North Dakota and $805 in Wyoming, a difference between the lowest and the highest of $689 or 594 percent (table 5.A). This difference was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($761 or 691 percent) because the value for Wyoming at the top of the range was reduced. Compared with the final allocations, the largest increases in the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child when the hold harmless provision was removed were in Maryland (+$8) and New Jersey (+$7), and the largest decreases were in New Hampshire (-$75) and Wyoming (-$67). Overall, 27 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico had decreases in their allocations compared with the final allocations, while 23 states had no changes or increases.

Similar to the final allocation, when the hold harmless provision was removed from the formula, remote rural areas received a higher Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ($145) than all other locales, which ranged from $127 for fringe rural areas and $129 for midsize cities to $138 for large cities (table 5.B; figure 5.4). The difference between the allocations for remote rural areas and fringe rural areas was $18 or 14 percent, which was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($24 or 19 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the hold harmless provision was removed, midsize cities had the largest increase (+$5) and large cities had the second-largest increase (+$3); in contrast, small suburban areas and fringe towns had the largest decreases (both -$9).

---

Figure 5.4. Title I, Part A Concentration Grant final allocation per formula-eligible child and allocation with hold harmless provision removed, by school district characteristics: 2015

¹ To create the poverty quarters, all school districts are ranked, from the highest to the lowest, according to their percentage of formula-eligible 5- to 17-year-old children. Districts are divided into quarters based on the percentage of all 5- to 17-year-old children they serve, such that each quarter includes districts serving 25 percent of the 5- to 17-year-old children in the United States (including Puerto Rico).
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Title I Allocation File, 2015; National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Local Education Agency Universe Survey,” 2013–14, Provisional Version 1a.

---

When the hold harmless provision was removed from the formula, the lowest poverty quarter received the highest Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ($156). Districts with higher poverty rates had lower allocations. For example, the allocation was lowest for the second-highest poverty quarter ($130); the allocations were $135 for both the highest poverty quarter and the second-lowest poverty quarter. Compared with the final allocations, when the hold harmless provision was removed, there were decreases in the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child for the lowest poverty quarter (-$61) and the second-lowest poverty quarter (-$10). In contrast, there was an increase of $6 for the second-highest poverty quarter. When the hold harmless provision was removed, the difference between the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child for the second-highest poverty quarter ($130) and the lowest poverty quarter ($156) was $25 or 20 percent, which was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($93 or 75 percent). This smaller difference was primarily due to the decrease in the allocation for the lowest poverty quarter.

Similar to the final allocations, when the hold harmless provision was removed from the formula, there was no consistent pattern regarding Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child within the poverty quarters with respect to district population size. The largest districts in the highest poverty quarter had a higher allocation ($139) than districts of other population sizes in that quarter, which ranged from $132 in the smallest districts to $135 in the second-largest districts. In contrast, in the second-lowest poverty quarter, the largest districts had a lower allocation ($123) than districts of other sizes in that quarter, which ranged from $130 in the second-largest districts to $153 in the smallest districts.

Compared with the final allocations, when the hold harmless provision was removed from the formula, there were decreases in the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child of $10 or more in several of the district population sizes in the second-lowest poverty quarter. The largest decreases were for the smallest districts in the second-lowest poverty quarter (-$23) and the second-smallest districts in the second-lowest poverty quarter (-$14), and the largest increase was for the second-largest districts (+$7) in the second-highest poverty quarter. The range in the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the smallest and largest districts in the highest poverty quarter ($7) was slightly lower than the range for the final allocations ($8).

Similar to the pattern for the final allocations, when the hold harmless provision was removed from the formula, the Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child for districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) was higher than for districts of other population sizes. Also similar to the pattern for the final allocations, districts of larger population sizes had progressively lower allocations. The highest Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child was for districts with a population of less than 300 ($155), and the second-highest allocation was for districts with a population of 300 to 599 ($147). The lowest allocation was for districts with a population of 25,000 or more (the largest districts) ($131). After removal of the hold harmless provision, the difference in the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the district population sizes with the highest and lowest allocations was $23, which was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($65). Compared with the final allocations, removal of the hold harmless provision resulted in lower allocations for districts with smaller population sizes. The largest decreases were for districts with a population of less than 300 (-$39) and districts with a population of 300 to 599 (-$14), and the largest increase was for districts with a population of 25,000 or more (+$2).

Top

Removal of Number of Formula-Eligible Children Exceeds 6,500

Removal of the Concentration Grant eligibility provision that required school districts to have more than 6,500 formula-eligible children in order to receive funding reduced the allocations for large districts with relatively low poverty levels (and tended to slightly increase allocations for districts with higher poverty levels). It is important to note that this analysis retained the hold harmless provision at the district level, which limited the reduction of funding in a specific district to no more than 15 percent in a given year. The long-term impact of removing the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision was not fully reflected in this analysis. The hold harmless provision moderated the long-term impact of removing the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision by limiting the impact on a district to a maximum decline of 15 percent of its Title I funds from the preceding year. Additional declines of up to 15 percent per year could occur until the formula provisions were fully met for a district. Due to the zero-sum nature of Title I allocations, funds from each year’s decline would be redistributed to other districts eligible for additional funds.

After removal of the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision from the formula, the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child ranged from $110 in Utah and $111 in Florida and North Carolina to $590 in North Dakota and $871 in Wyoming, a difference between the lowest and the highest of $761 or 692 percent (table 5.A). This difference was about the same as the difference for the final allocations ($761 or 691 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision was removed, the largest increases in the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child were in South Dakota, Vermont, and North Dakota (all +$2). The largest decreases were in Maryland (-$15) and Virginia (-$6). Overall, 6 states had decreases in their allocations compared with the final allocations, while 44 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico had no changes or increases.

Similar to the final allocations, when the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision was removed from the formula, remote rural areas received a higher Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ($151) than all other locales, which ranged from $127 for midsize suburban areas and $128 for midsize cities to $146 for small suburban areas (table 5.B; figure 5.5). The difference between the allocations for remote rural areas and midsize suburban areas was $24 or 19 percent, which was the same as the difference for the final allocations. Compared with the final allocations, when the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision was removed, the only change of $1 or more in the Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child was for large suburban areas (-$1).

---

Figure 5.5. Title I, Part A Concentration Grant final allocation per formula-eligible child and allocation with number of formula-eligible children exceeds 6,500 provision removed, by school district characteristics: 2015

¹ To create the poverty quarters, all school districts are ranked, from the highest to the lowest, according to their percentage of formula-eligible 5- to 17-year-old children. Districts are divided into quarters based on the percentage of all 5- to 17-year-old children they serve, such that each quarter includes districts serving 25 percent of the 5- to 17-year-old children in the United States (including Puerto Rico).
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Title I Allocation File, 2015; National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Local Education Agency Universe Survey,” 2013–14, Provisional Version 1a.

---

When the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision was removed from the formula, the lowest poverty quarter received the highest Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ($195). Districts with higher poverty rates had lower allocations. For example, the allocation was lowest for the second-highest poverty quarter ($124). Compared with the final allocations, when the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision was removed, there were decreases in the allocations for the lowest poverty quarter (-$21) and the second-lowest poverty quarter (-$1). The increases in the allocations for the highest and second-highest poverty quarters were under $1. After the removal of the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision, the difference between the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child for the second-highest poverty quarter and the lowest poverty quarter was $71 or 57 percent, which was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($93 or 75 percent). This smaller difference was partly due to the reduction in allocations for large districts in the second-lowest and lowest poverty quarters that no longer qualified for Concentration Grants through the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision.

Similar to the final allocations, when the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision was removed from the formula, there was no consistent pattern regarding Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child within the poverty quarters with respect to district population size. The largest districts in the highest poverty quarter had a higher allocation ($140) than districts of other population sizes in that quarter, which ranged from $132 for the second-smallest districts to $134 for the second-largest districts. In contrast, in the second-lowest poverty quarter, the largest districts ($117) had a lower allocation than districts of other population sizes in that quarter, which ranged from $140 for the second-largest districts to $176 for the smallest districts. After removal of the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision, there were no changes of more than $1 in the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child for most of the poverty and population size quarters, compared with the final allocations. The two exceptions were a decrease of $21 in the allocation for the largest districts in the lowest poverty quarter and a decrease of $3 in the allocation for the largest districts in the second-lowest poverty quarter. When the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision was removed, the difference in the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the districts in the highest poverty quarter with the highest and lowest allocations was $8, which was the same as the difference for the final allocations.

Top

Table 5.1.  Population and Concentration Grant allocation for school districts that receive Concentration Grants from the number of formula-eligible children exceeds 6,500 provision only: 2015

School district	State	Population			Concentration Grant allocation
		All 5- to 17-year-olds	Formula-eligible 5- to 17- year-olds	Formula-eligibility percentage rate
Total		1,891,575	212,134	11.2	$28,467,029
Corona-Norco Unified School District	California	55,882	7,767	13.9	901,740
San Francisco Unified School District	California	73,913	10,726	14.5	1,245,276
Jefferson County School District R-1	Colorado	88,260	10,950	12.4	1,216,021
Henry County School District	Georgia	45,460	6,793	14.9	808,197
Honolulu County	Hawaii	149,165	17,733	11.9	2,724,064
Anne Arundel County Public Schools	Maryland	91,526	7,589	8.3	1,244,083
Baltimore County Public Schools	Maryland	128,226	15,417	12.0	2,527,347
Montgomery County Public Schools	Maryland	173,396	15,426	8.9	2,528,822
Prince George's County Public Schools	Maryland	142,561	18,622	13.1	3,052,750
Wake County Schools	North Carolina	181,251	24,318	13.4	2,657,673
Conroe Independent School District	Texas	56,948	7,580	13.3	828,405
Fort Bend Independent School District	Texas	82,427	10,335	12.5	1,129,495
Klein Independent School District	Texas	49,135	7,215	14.7	788,515
Alpine School District	Utah	82,407	8,185	9.9	894,525
Davis School District	Utah	78,643	6,899	8.8	753,980
Fairfax County Public Schools	Virginia	195,333	13,766	7.0	1,944,204
Henrico County Public Schools	Virginia	54,985	6,762	12.3	955,013
Prince William County Public Schools	Virginia	88,432	7,649	8.6	1,080,286
Virginia Beach City Public Schools	Virginia	73,625	8,402	11.4	1,186,634
NOTE: Concentration Grants flow to school districts where the number of formula-eligible children is at least 6,500 or 15 percent of the school district's 5- to 17-year-old population. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Title I Allocation File, 2015; National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Local Education Agency Universe Survey," 2013–14, Provisional Version 1a.

---

When the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision was removed from the formula, the Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child for districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) was higher than for districts of other population sizes. Similar to the pattern for the final allocations, districts of larger population sizes had progressively lower allocations. The highest Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child was for districts with a population of less than 300 ($194), and the second-highest allocation was for districts with a population of 300 to 599 ($162). The lowest allocation was for districts with a population of 25,000 or more (the largest districts) ($129). After removal of the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision, there was no change exceeding $0.50 in the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child for any of the district population sizes, compared with the final allocations. When the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision was removed, the difference in the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the district population sizes with the highest and lowest allocations was $66, which was slightly larger than the difference for the final allocations ($65).

Top

Removal of Percentage of Formula-Eligible Children Exceeds 15 Percent

Removal of the Concentration Grant eligibility provision that required more than 15 percent of a school district’s population to be formula eligible increased the allocations for large districts that did not qualify for allocations through the 15 percent formula-eligible children provision. It is important to note that this analysis retained the hold harmless provision at the district level, which limited the reduction of funding in a specific district to no more than 15 percent in a given year. The long-term impact of removing the 15 percent formula-eligible children provision was not fully reflected in this analysis. Nearly all of the states receiving Concentration Grant funds received them through the 15 percent formula-eligible children provision. There were only 19 large districts that received funding through the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision. The hold harmless provision moderated the long-term impact of removing the 15 percent formula-eligible children provision by limiting the impact on a district to a maximum decline of 15 percent of its Title I funds from the preceding year. Additional declines of up to 15 percent per year could occur until the formula provisions were fully met for a district. Due to the zero-sum nature of Title I allocations, funds from each year’s decline would be redistributed to other districts eligible for additional funds.

After removal of the 15 percent formula-eligible children provision from the formula, the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child ranged from $107 in Idaho and $110 in Alabama to $565 in North Dakota and $984 in Wyoming, a difference between the lowest and the highest of $877 or 823 percent (table 5.A). This difference was larger than the difference for the final allocations ($761 or 691 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the 15 percent formula-eligible children provision was removed, the largest increases in the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child were in Hawaii (+$19) and Wyoming (+$112), and the largest decreases were in South Dakota (-$29) and North Dakota (-$23). Overall, 31 states had decreases in their allocations compared with the final allocations, while 19 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico had no changes or increases.

In contrast to the final allocations or allocations with other single provisions removed, when the 15 percent formula-eligible children provision was removed from the formula, large cities received a higher Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ($149) than all other locales, which ranged from $121 for rural fringe areas, remote towns, distant towns, and midsize suburban areas to $142 for remote rural areas (table 5.B; figure 5.6). The difference between the allocations for large cities and those locales with the lowest allocations was $28 or 23 percent, which was larger than the difference for the final allocations ($24 or 19 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the 15 percent formula-eligible children provision was removed, the largest increases in the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child were for large cities (+$13) and midsize cities (+$7). The largest decrease was for small suburban areas (-$12), and there were decreases of $9 to $11 for each of the town and rural locales.

---

Figure 5.6. Title I, Part A Concentration Grant final allocation per formula-eligible child and allocation with percentage of formula-eligible children exceeds 15 percent of total 5- to 17-year-old population provision removed, by school district characteristics: 2015

¹ To create the poverty quarters, all school districts are ranked, from the highest to the lowest, according to their percentage of formula-eligible 5- to 17-year-old children. Districts are divided into quarters based on the percentage of all 5- to 17-year-old children they serve, such that each quarter includes districts serving 25 percent of the 5- to 17-year-old children in the United States (including Puerto Rico).
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Title I Allocation File, 2015; National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Local Education Agency Universe Survey,” 2013–14, Provisional Version 1a.

---

When the 15 percent formula-eligible children provision was removed from the formula, the lowest poverty quarter received the highest Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ($236). Districts with higher poverty rates had lower allocations. For example, the allocation was lowest for the second-highest poverty quarter ($123). Compared with the final allocations, when the 15 percent formula-eligible children provision was removed, there were decreases in the allocations for the second-lowest poverty quarter (-$5) and the second-highest poverty quarter (-$1). There were increases in the allocations for the highest poverty quarter (+$4) and the lowest poverty quarter (+$19). After the removal of the 15 percent formula-eligible children provision, the difference between the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child for the second-highest poverty quarter and the lowest poverty quarter was $113 or 92 percent, which was larger than the difference for the final allocations ($93 or 75 percent). This larger difference was primarily due to the increase in the allocation for the lowest poverty quarter.

Similar to the final allocations, when the 15 percent formula-eligible children provision was removed from the formula, there was no consistent pattern regarding Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child within the poverty quarters with respect to district population size. The largest districts in the highest poverty quarter had a higher allocation ($152) than districts of other population sizes in that quarter, which ranged from $125 in the smallest districts to $146 in the second-largest districts. In contrast, in the second-lowest poverty quarter, the largest districts ($135) had a lower Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child than the second-smallest districts ($140) and smallest districts ($163) in that quarter.

After removal of the 15 percent formula-eligible children provision from the formula, there were increases in the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child for the largest districts in each of the poverty quarters, compared with the final allocations. There were decreases in the allocations for the smallest and second-smallest districts in the highest, second-highest, and second-lowest poverty quarters. The largest increases in the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child were for the largest districts in the lowest poverty quarter (+$19), the second-lowest poverty quarter (+$15), and the second-highest poverty quarter (+$15). The largest decreases in the allocations were for the smallest districts in the second-highest poverty quarter and the second-smallest districts in the second-lowest poverty quarter (both -$14). After the removal of the 15 percent formula-eligible children provision, the range in the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the largest and smallest districts in the highest poverty quarter ($26) was larger than the range for the final allocations ($8).

When the 15 percent formula-eligible children provision was removed from the formula, the Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child for districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) was higher than for districts of other population sizes. Districts of larger population sizes had progressively lower allocations until the population size reached 10,000. The highest Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child was for districts with a population of less than 300 ($182), and the second-highest allocation was for districts with a population of 300 to 599 ($150). The lowest allocation was for districts with a population of 5,000 to 9,999 ($123). Compared with the final allocations, when the 15 percent formula-eligible children provision was removed, only districts with a population of 25,000 or more had an increase (+$12). Districts of other population sizes had decreases ranging from $8 for districts with a population of 10,000 to 24,999 to $12 for districts with a population of less than 300, districts with a population of 1,000 to 2,499, and districts with a population of 5,000 to 9,999. After removal of the 15 percent formula-eligible children provision, the difference in the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the district population sizes with the highest and lowest allocations was $59, which was slightly smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($65).

Top

Removal of Hold Harmless and Number of Formula-Eligible Children Exceeds 6,500

Removal of multiple formula provisions can lead to a better understanding of the interaction of those provisions and enable a more complete analysis of the implications of individual provisions. In particular, removal of the hold harmless and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions in combination provides information on the long-term impact of removing the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision. Removing the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision alone affects the initial allocations, but it also has a long-term impact when the decreases for some school districts are not restricted to the one-year hold harmless reduction limits (-15 percent). Removing the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision reduced allocations for large districts with relatively low poverty levels (and slightly increased allocations for other districts). Removal of the hold harmless provision allowed current formula provisions and current distributions of formula-eligible children to have a full impact on the allocation; with the hold harmless provision, the allocations were limited by the maximum yearly reductions. Removal of the hold harmless provision permitted reductions of over 15 percent for districts that may have had decreases or smaller increases in the number of formula-eligible children compared with other districts (figure 5.7).

---

Figure 5.7. Title I, Part A Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child and difference between school district locales with the highest and lowest allocations after removal of hold harmless and number of formula-eligible children exceeds 6,500 provisions, by state or jurisdiction: 2015

NOTE: The school district locales receiving the highest and lowest allocations vary by state or jurisdiction.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Title I Allocation File, 2015; National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Local Education Agency Universe Survey,” 2013–14, Provisional Version 1a.

---

After the hold harmless and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions were removed from the formula in combination, the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child ranged from $118 in 12 states and Puerto Rico to $590 in North Dakota and $807 in Wyoming, a difference between the lowest and the highest of $688 or 581 percent (table 5.A). This difference was smaller than the difference for the final allocations and allocations with other provisions removed because of the decrease for Wyoming. Compared with the final allocations, when the hold harmless and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions were removed, the largest increases in the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child were in Hawaii (+$150) and Maryland (+$12), and the largest decreases were in Wyoming (-$64) and New Hampshire (-$73). Overall, 15 states and Puerto Rico had decreases in their allocations compared with the final allocations, while 35 states and the District of Columbia had no changes or increases.

Similar to the final allocations, when the hold harmless and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions were removed from the formula in combination, remote rural areas received a higher Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ($148) than all other locales, which ranged from $130 for fringe rural areas and $132 for midsize suburban areas to $141 for large cities (table 5.B; figure 5.8). The difference between the allocations for remote rural areas and fringe rural areas was $18 or 14 percent, which was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($24 or 19 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the hold harmless and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions were removed, the largest increases in the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child were for midsize cities (+$8) and large cities (+$6), and the largest decreases were for small suburban areas and fringe towns (both -$6).

---

Figure 5.8. Title I, Part A Concentration Grant final allocation per formula-eligible child and allocation with hold harmless and number of formula-eligible children exceeds 6,500 provisions removed, by school district characteristics: 2015

† Not applicable.
¹ To create the poverty quarters, all school districts are ranked, from the highest to the lowest, according to their percentage of formula-eligible 5- to 17-year-old children. Districts are divided into quarters based on the percentage of all 5- to 17-year-old children they serve, such that each quarter includes districts serving 25 percent of the 5- to 17-year-old children in the United States (including Puerto Rico).
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Title I Allocation File, 2015; National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Local Education Agency Universe Survey,” 2013–14, Provisional Version 1a.

---

When the hold harmless and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions were removed from the formula in combination, the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child within most states did not vary by locale (table 5.C; figure 5.7). There was a difference in the allocations between the locales with the highest and lowest allocations in 8 states: South Dakota ($168), Wyoming ($58), Pennsylvania ($56), Montana ($24), Minnesota ($22), Michigan ($8), Ohio ($6), and New York ($2).

After the hold harmless and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions were removed from the formula in combination, the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child for large cities (or midsize cities in states where large cities were not applicable) ranged from $118 in 12 states to $423 in Alaska (table 5.C; figure 5.8). Across each of the locales, except for fringe towns, the difference between the lowest and the highest Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child was over $200. The largest range in the allocations was for remote rural areas, where the allocations ranged from $118 in 11 states to $857 in Wyoming (a difference of $739).

When the hold harmless and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions were removed from the formula in combination, the lowest poverty quarter did not receive a Concentration Grant allocation. Among the other poverty quarters, the Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child was lowest for the second-highest poverty quarter ($133) and highest for the second-lowest poverty quarter ($139). Compared with the final allocations, when the hold harmless and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions were removed, there were decreases in the allocations for the lowest poverty quarter (-$217) and the second-lowest poverty quarter (-$6). In contrast, there were increases for the second-highest poverty quarter (+$10) and the highest poverty quarter (+$3). After the removal of the hold harmless and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions, the difference between the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child for the second-lowest and second-highest poverty quarters was $139, which was larger than the difference for the final allocations ($93 or 75 percent). This larger difference was primarily due to the lowest poverty quarter not being eligible for Concentration Grants in this formula alternative.

Similar to the final allocations, when the hold harmless and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions were removed from the formula in combination, there was no consistent pattern regarding Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child within the poverty quarters with respect to district population size. The largest districts in the highest poverty quarter had a higher allocation ($142) than districts of other population sizes in that quarter, which ranged from $134 in the smallest districts to $138 in the second-largest districts. In contrast, in the second-lowest poverty quarter, the largest districts had a lower allocation ($124) than districts of other population sizes in that quarter, which ranged from $133 for the second-largest districts to $156 for the smallest districts.

Compared with the final allocations, when the hold harmless and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions were removed from the formula in combination, there were increases in the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child for districts of all population sizes in the highest and second-highest poverty quarters, and there were decreases for the second-largest, second-smallest, and smallest districts in the second-lowest poverty quarter. Compared with the final allocations, when the hold harmless and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions were removed, the largest increase was for the second-largest districts in the second-highest poverty quarter (+$11), and the largest decrease for the districts receiving allocations was for the smallest districts in the second-lowest poverty quarter (-$19). There was no allocation for districts in the lowest poverty quarter, so the largest districts in the lowest poverty quarter had a decrease of $159 compared with the final allocation. After removal of the hold harmless and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions, the range in the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the largest and smallest districts in the highest poverty quarter ($7) was about the same as the range for the final allocations ($8).

When the hold harmless and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions were removed from the formula in combination, the Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child for districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) was higher than for districts of other sizes. Similar to the final allocations, districts of larger population sizes had progressively lower allocations. The highest Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child was for districts with a population of less than 300 ($158), and the second-highest allocation was for districts with a population of 300 to 599 ($150). The lowest allocation was for districts with a population of 25,000 or more (the largest districts) ($134). Compared with the final allocations, removal of the hold harmless and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions resulted in decreases for districts of smaller population sizes and increases for districts of larger population sizes. While the removal of the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision tended to benefit smaller districts, only a small number of districts benefited from this provision. On the other hand, there were many districts that benefited from the hold harmless provision, so removing this provision had a disproportionate impact on small districts and outweighed the impact of removing the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision. The largest increase in the Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child was for districts with a population of 25,000 or more (+$5), and the largest decrease was for districts with a population of less than 300 (-$36). After removal of the hold harmless and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions, the difference in the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the district population sizes with the highest and lowest allocations was $24, which was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($65).

Top

Removal of State per Pupil Expenditure (SPPE), Hold Harmless, and Number of Formula-Eligible Children Exceeds 6,500

Removal of multiple provisions produces patterns that differ from those for the final allocations or allocations with single provisions removed. Removal of the hold harmless provision in conjunction with the removal of the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision provides information on the long-term impact of removing these provisions. Removing the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision alone affects the initial allocations, but it also has a long-term impact when the decreases for some school districts are not restricted to the one-year hold harmless reduction limits (-15 percent). Removing the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision reduced allocations for large districts with relatively low poverty levels (and slightly increased allocations for other districts). Removal of the state per pupil expenditure (SPPE) provision increased the Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child in lower-spending states and decreased the allocation in higher-spending states. Removal of the hold harmless provision allowed current formula provisions and current distributions of formula-eligible children to have a full impact on the allocation; with the hold harmless provision, the allocations would be limited by the maximum yearly reductions. Removal of the hold harmless provision permitted reductions of over 15 percent for school districts that may have had decreases or smaller increases in the number of formula-eligible children compared with other districts.

When the SPPE, hold harmless, and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions were removed from the formula in combination, the Concentration Grant allocations ranged from $135 in 35 states and Puerto Rico to $590 in North Dakota and $807 in Wyoming, a difference between the lowest and the highest of $672 or 496 percent (table 5.A). This difference was smaller than the difference for the final allocations and allocations with other provisions removed partly because of the decrease in Wyoming and partly because of the increase in Florida. Compared with the final allocations, when the SPPE, hold harmless, and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions were removed, the largest increases in the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child were in Hawaii (+$150) and Florida (+$25), and the largest decreases were in Wyoming (-$64) and New Hampshire (-$73). Overall, 25 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico had decreases in their allocations compared with the final allocations, while 25 states had no changes or increases.

Similar to the final allocations, when the SPPE, hold harmless, and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions were removed from the formula in combination, remote rural areas received a higher Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ($151) than all other locales, which ranged from $135 for large cities to $140 for remote towns (table 5.B; figure 5.9). The difference between the allocations for remote rural areas and large cities was $16 or 12 percent, which was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($24 or 19 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the SPPE, hold harmless, and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions were removed, the largest increases in the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child were for midsize cities, midsize suburban areas, and remote towns (all +$9), and the largest decreases were for small suburban areas (-$9) and fringe towns (-$7).

---

Figure 5.9. Title I, Part A Concentration Grant final allocation per formula-eligible child and allocation with state per pupil expenditure (SPPE), hold harmless, and number of formula-eligible children exceeds 6,500 provisions removed, by school district characteristics: 2015

† Not applicable.
¹ To create the poverty quarters, all school districts are ranked, from the highest to the lowest, according to their percentage of formula-eligible 5- to 17-year-old children. Districts are divided into quarters based on the percentage of all 5- to 17-year-old children they serve, such that each quarter includes districts serving 25 percent of the 5- to 17-year-old children in the United States (including Puerto Rico).
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Title I Allocation File, 2015; National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), “Local Education Agency Universe Survey,” 2013–14, Provisional Version 1a.

---

When the SPPE, hold harmless, and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions were removed from the formula in combination, the lowest poverty quarter did not receive a Concentration Grant allocation. Among the other poverty quarters, the allocation was lowest for the highest poverty quarter ($136) and highest for the second-lowest poverty quarter ($138). Compared with the final allocations, when the SPPE, hold harmless, and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions were removed, there were decreases in the allocations for the lowest poverty quarter (-$217) and the second-lowest poverty quarter (-$7). In contrast, there were increases for districts in the second-highest poverty quarter (+$13) and the highest poverty quarter (+$2). After the removal of the SPPE, hold harmless, and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions, the difference between the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child for the highest and lowest poverty quarters was $138, which was larger than the difference for the final allocations ($93 or 75 percent). This larger difference was primarily due to the lowest poverty quarter not being eligible for Concentration Grants in this formula alternative.

When the SPPE, hold harmless, and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions were removed from the formula in combination, there was a consistent pattern regarding Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child within the poverty quarters with respect to district population size; for the final allocations and allocations with most other provisions removed, there was not a consistent pattern. The smallest districts in each of the three poverty quarters that received allocations had higher allocations than districts of other population sizes in each quarter. For example, in the highest poverty quarter, the smallest districts had the highest allocation ($138), while districts of other population sizes in that quarter ranged from $135 to $136. Also, in the second-lowest poverty quarter, the smallest districts had the highest allocation ($142), while districts of other population sizes in that quarter ranged from $135 to $138.

Compared with the final allocations, after removal of the SPPE, hold harmless, and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions from the formula in combination, the changes for the largest and smallest districts differed by poverty quarter. Within the highest poverty quarter, there was a decrease in the Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child for the largest districts (-$5); there were increases of $2 to $5 for districts of other population sizes. Within the second-highest poverty quarter, there were increases for districts of all population sizes, with the largest increase being for the second-largest districts (+$19). Within the second-lowest poverty quarter, there was an increase for the largest districts (+$16), but there were decreases for districts of other population sizes, with the largest decrease being for the smallest districts (-$33). There was no allocation for districts in the lowest poverty quarter. After removal of the SPPE, hold harmless, and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions, the range in the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the largest and smallest districts in the highest poverty quarter ($2) was smaller than the range for the final allocations ($8).

When the SPPE, hold harmless, and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions were removed from the formula in combination, the Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child for districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) was higher than for districts of other sizes. Similar to the final allocations, districts with larger population sizes had lower allocations than districts with populations under 5,000. The highest Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child was for districts with a population of less than 300 ($158), and the second-highest allocation was for districts with a population of 300 to 599 ($148). The lowest allocations were for districts with a population of 5,000 to 9,999, districts with a population of 10,000 to 24,999, and districts with a population of 25,000 or more (the largest districts) (all $136). Compared with the final allocations, removal of the SPPE, hold harmless, and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions resulted in decreases for districts of smaller population sizes and increases for districts of larger population sizes. The largest increase in the Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child was for districts with a population of 25,000 or more (+$7), and the largest decrease was for districts with a population of less than 300 (-$36). After removal of the SPPE, hold harmless, and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions, the difference in the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the district population sizes with the highest and lowest allocations was $22, which was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($65).

Top

Cost Adjustment Using the American Community Survey-Comparable Wage Index (ACS-CWI)

After applying the American Community Survey-Comparable Wage Index (ACS-CWI), the FY 15 Concentration Grant final allocations per formula-eligible child ranged from $112 in Nevada to $984 in Wyoming (a difference of $873) (table 5.AA). This difference was larger than the difference without the cost adjustment ($761). Increases in the range between the states with the lowest and highest Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child when applying the ACS-CWI were also observed when various provisions were removed. After removing the hold harmless and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions from the formula in combination, the difference in the cost-adjusted Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the states with the lowest and highest allocations was $776 (the difference without the cost adjustment was $688). The 7 states with the highest cost-adjusted Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child when the hold harmless and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions were removed in combination also had the highest cost-adjusted allocations when the SPPE, hold harmless, and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions were removed in combination.

Applying the ACS-CWI to the Concentration Grant final allocations per formula-eligible child reduced some of the ranges by poverty quarter, but the same general patterns prevailed. The highest poverty quarter received a lower cost-adjusted final allocation ($141) than both the lowest poverty quarter ($216) and the second-lowest poverty quarter ($157) (table 5.BB). Removal of the hold harmless provision from the formula reduced the difference in the cost-adjusted Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the poverty quarters with the highest and lowest allocations to $7 (ranging from $141 for the highest poverty quarter to $148 for the lowest poverty quarter). Similarly, removal of the hold harmless and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions in combination reduced the difference in the cost-adjusted allocations between the poverty quarters with the highest and lowest allocations to $6 (ranging from $144 for the highest poverty quarter to $151 for the second-lowest poverty quarter). There was no allocation for the lowest poverty quarter.

When the ACS-CWI was applied, remote rural areas had the highest Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child across all the formula analyses. For example, when the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision was removed from the formula, the cost-adjusted allocations ranged from $132 for large cities to $187 for remote rural areas. When both the hold harmless and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions were removed in combination, the cost-adjusted allocations ranged from $135 for large suburban areas to $183 for remote rural areas.

Applying the ACS-CWI resulted in larger differences between the districts with the smallest and largest population sizes. Districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) had a cost-adjusted Concentration Grant final allocation per formula-eligible child of $230, while districts with a population of 25,000 or more (the largest districts) had a cost-adjusted final allocation of $130. This difference ($101) was larger than the difference for the unadjusted final allocations ($65). Similar to the allocations without the cost adjustment, removing the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision resulted in the largest difference between the smallest and largest districts ($102), compared with the differences when other provisions were removed (districts with a population of less than 300 had a cost-adjusted allocation of $231, and districts with a population of 25,000 or more had a cost-adjusted allocation of $129).

Applying the ACS-CWI increased the difference in the Concentration Grant final allocations per formula-eligible child between the smallest and largest districts in the second-lowest poverty quarter by $26 (to $82). Across all poverty and population size quarters, the cost-adjusted final allocations ranged from $121 for the largest districts in the second-lowest poverty quarter to $203 for the smallest districts in the second-lowest poverty quarter. This pattern of smaller districts having higher allocations was also observed for the highest poverty quarter, after applying the ACS-CWI. Within the highest poverty quarter, the smallest districts received a higher cost-adjusted Concentration Grant final allocation per formula-eligible child ($155) than the largest districts ($132), a difference of $23.

In contrast to the pattern for the allocations without the cost adjustment, when the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision was removed from the formula, the largest districts in the highest poverty quarter received a lower cost-adjusted Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ($132) than the smallest districts in that quarter ($155). Also, when the hold harmless and 6,500 formula-eligible children provisions were removed in combination, the largest districts in the highest poverty quarter received a lower cost-adjusted allocation ($134) than the smallest districts in that quarter ($157). In all but two of the formula analyses, the smallest districts in the second-lowest poverty quarter received the highest cost-adjusted Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child, compared with all other poverty and population size quarters.

Top