## Chapter 1: Fiscal Year 2015 Final Allocations for Title I

This chapter presents an overview of fiscal year 2015 (FY 15) Title I allocations per formula-eligible child under current law. The analyses compare the average total (overall) Title I allocations per formula-eligible child, as well as the average allocations per formula-eligible child for each of the four individual grants (all allocations herein are averages). These analyses include comparisons of the allocations by National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) geographic locale, poverty quarter, and population size. The allocations are also adjusted to reflect local variations in purchasing power (using the American Community Survey-Comparable Wage Index), and these data are compared with the allocations without the adjustment (in current dollars).

The total Title I allocation to a district is the sum of the Basic Grant, Concentration Grant, Targeted Grant, and Education Finance Incentive Grant (EFIG) allocations. These amounts are derived from four independent formulas that are not necessarily based on the same number of formula-eligible children. The total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child is the sum of the four allocations divided by the maximum number of formula-eligible children in the district or state. The amount allocated to each state is the sum of all funding allocated to districts in that state.

Basic Grants were the largest of the four Title I grants, amounting to \$6.4 billion or 45 percent of the total Title I allocation in FY 15. The Basic Grant allocation per formula-eligible child was \$550 (table 1.A; figure 1.1). Basic Grants had the highest number of formula-eligible children (11.6 million). Targeted Grants and EFIG had the second-highest number of formula-eligible children (both round to 11.6 million). Combined, the funds allocated to Targeted Grants (\$3.3 billion) and EFIG (\$3.3 billion) were roughly equivalent to the amount that flowed through Basic Grants. The allocation per formula-eligible child was \$282 each for Targeted Grants and for EFIG. Concentration Grants were the smallest of the four grant types and represented 9 percent (\$1.3 billion) of all Title I funds. The number of Concentration Grant formula-eligible children (10.1 million) was smaller than the number of formula-eligible children for the other Title I grants.

Highlights

• The total Title I final allocation per formula-eligible child ranged from \$984 in Idaho and \$996 in Utah to \$2,579 in Wyoming and \$2,590 in Vermont, a difference from the lowest to the highest of \$1,606 or 163 percent (table 1.A).
• Of the 12 NCES locales, the two locales with the highest total Title I final allocations per formula-eligible child were the most densely and least densely populated areas: large cities (\$1,466) and remote rural areas (\$1,313) (table 1.B; figure 1.2).
• The highest poverty quarter had the highest total Title I final allocation per formula-eligible child (\$1,381) (table 1.B; figure 1.2).
• Districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) had the highest total Title I final allocation per formula-eligible child (\$1,442) compared with districts of larger sizes. Districts with a population of 5,000 to 9,999 had the lowest final allocation (\$1,107) (table 1.B; figure 1.2).
• Nationally, 21.4 percent of 5- to 17-year-olds were eligible for Title I funds. Puerto Rico (55.9 percent), the District of Columbia (32.5 percent), and Mississippi (32.2 percent) had the highest percentages of formula-eligible children, while New Hampshire (9.9 percent) and North Dakota (11.8 percent) had the lowest percentages (table 1.C).
• Twenty-five states and Puerto Rico had smaller percentages of the Title I funds than their percentages of the formula-eligible population, while 25 states and the District of Columbia had larger percentages of the funds than their percentages of the formula-eligible population (table 1.C; figure 1.7).
• The smallest and largest districts were both allocated higher percentages of the Title I funds than their percentages of the formula-eligible population (table 1.D; figure 1.8).
• The state range for the Basic Grant final allocations per formula-eligible child (\$659) was smaller than the range for Concentration Grants (\$761) but larger than the range for Targeted Grants (\$481) and Education Finance Incentive Grants (EFIG) (\$465) (table 1.A).
• Overall, large cities received higher Targeted Grant and EFIG final allocations per formula-eligible child than all other locales. However, for Basic Grants and Concentration Grants, remote rural areas had higher final allocations.
• The highest poverty quarter had the highest final allocations per formula-eligible child for Targeted Grants (\$336) and EFIG (\$352). In contrast, the lowest poverty quarter had the highest final allocations per formula-eligible child for Basic Grants (\$604) and Concentration Grants (\$217) (table 1.B; figures 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6).
• For Targeted Grants and EFIG, districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of 25,000 or more (the largest districts) had the highest final allocations per formula-eligible child (\$332 and \$338, respectively), and districts with a population of less than 300 had the second-highest final allocations (\$323 and \$333, respectively) (table 1.B; figures 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6).

Top

Total Title I Allocation

Title I allocations to districts totaled \$14.3 billion in FY 15 (table 1.A; figure 1.1). There were 11.6 million Title I formula-eligible children in the United States, which amounted to 21 percent of all 5- to 17-year-olds (table 1.C). The Title I allocation per formula-eligible child was \$1,227 (table 1.A; figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1. Title I, Part A total allocation, number of formula-eligible children, and allocation per formula-eligible child, by grant type: 2015

1 Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.
2 The allocation for each of the four grant types is based on a different number of formula-eligible children. Thus, the total allocation per formula-eligible child does not equal the sum of the allocations per formula-eligible child for each grant type.
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 (table 1.A).

The total Title I final allocation per formula-eligible child ranged from \$984 in Idaho and \$996 in Utah to \$2,579 in Wyoming and \$2,590 in Vermont, a difference between the lowest and the highest of \$1,606 or 163 percent (table 1.A). Both Idaho and Utah were limited by the state per pupil expenditure (SPPE) provision (not less than 80 percent of the U.S. average). Four states were allocated more than \$2,000 per formula-eligible child: Alaska (\$2,121), North Dakota (\$2,481), Wyoming (\$2,579), and Vermont (\$2,590). These four states had the fewest number of formula-eligible children and were all state minimum states for at least one grant. The two states with the highest Title I allocations per formula-eligible child that did not receive state minimum allocations under any of the Title I grant components were New York (\$1,611) and Maryland (\$1,588). Even though New York had the highest allocation for a state not eligible for the state minimum provision, its allocation was affected by its high SPPE value, which was capped at 120 percent of the U.S. average.

Large cities and remote rural areas tended to receive relatively large final allocations (table 1.B; figure 1.2). Overall, large cities had a higher total Title I final allocation per formula-eligible child (\$1,466) than all other locales. The final allocations among the other locales ranged from \$1,070 for fringe rural areas and \$1,088 for fringe towns to \$1,313 for remote rural areas. The difference between large cities and fringe rural areas was \$396 or 37 percent. Chapter 2 contains a more detailed discussion of the range in locales across states.

Figure 1.2. Title I, Part A total final allocation per formula-eligible child, 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.

There are many different measures to examine the Title I final allocations in high- and low-poverty school districts. One metric that can be used is poverty quarters. These poverty quarters were developed by ranking all districts, from the highest to the lowest, according to their percentage of formula-eligible 5- to 17-year-old children (which includes the children in poverty as well as other child populations determined by Title I legislation to be “formula eligible”). Districts were then divided into quarters based on the percentage of all 5- to 17-year-old children they serve, such that each quarter included districts serving 25 percent of the school-age children in the United States (including Puerto Rico). In FY 15, each quarter had roughly 13.6 million 5- to 17-year-olds (table 1.D). Although each quarter comprised districts that served 25 percent of all school-age children in the United States, the highest poverty quarter served 43 percent of all formula-eligible children. In contrast, the lowest poverty quarter served less than 10 percent of all formula-eligible children. Within poverty quarters, about 37 percent of the children in the highest poverty quarter were considered Title I formula eligible, compared with 8 percent of children in the lowest poverty quarter.

The highest poverty quarter had the highest total Title I final allocation per formula-eligible child (\$1,381) (table 1.B; figure 1.2). For the total Title I final allocation, districts with lower poverty rates had lower final allocations. For example, the lowest total Title I final allocations per formula-eligible child were for the lowest poverty quarter (\$1,023) and the second-lowest poverty quarter (\$1,097). The final allocation for the highest poverty quarter was \$357 or 35 percent higher than the final allocation for the lowest poverty quarter.

The largest districts (based on population size) consistently had higher total Title I final allocations per formula-eligible child than smaller districts within each poverty quarter. For example, in the highest poverty quarter, the largest districts had a higher final allocation (\$1,540) than districts of smaller sizes; this allocation was also the highest among districts in all other poverty quarters and of all population sizes (table 3.B). Within the highest poverty quarter, the second-largest districts had the second-highest final allocation (\$1,414), while the smallest districts had the lowest final allocation (\$1,280). The range in the Title I final allocations per formula-eligible child between the district population sizes with the highest and lowest allocations in the highest poverty quarter was \$260 or 20 percent.

The largest districts in the second-highest, second-lowest, and lowest poverty quarters consistently had the highest total Title I final allocations per formula-eligible child within each quarter, but the smallest districts did not receive the lowest final allocations, which was the pattern for the highest poverty quarter. For example, within the second-highest poverty quarter, the largest districts had the highest Title I final allocation per formula-eligible child (\$1,256), the smallest districts had the second-lowest final allocation (\$1,125), and the second-smallest districts had the lowest final allocation (\$1,082). Within the lowest poverty quarter, there was a similar pattern, and the second-smallest districts received the lowest final allocation (\$931), which was also the lowest among districts in all other poverty quarters and of all population sizes.

Districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) had a higher total Title I final allocation per formula-eligible child (\$1,442) than districts of other population sizes (table 1.B; figure 1.2). The second-highest final allocation was for districts with a population of 25,000 or more (\$1,323). Districts with a population of 5,000 to 9,999 had the lowest final allocation (\$1,107). The difference in the Title I final allocations per formula-eligible child between the district population sizes with the highest and lowest final allocations was \$334 or 30 percent.

Top

Basic Grant Final Allocation

The Basic Grant final allocations per formula-eligible child in FY 15 ranged from \$462 in Utah and \$465 in Florida to \$1,105 in Wyoming and \$1,121 in Vermont, a difference between the lowest and the highest of \$659 or 143 percent (table 1.A). Among those states not subject to the state minimum provision, the state with the highest Basic Grant final allocation per formula-eligible child was Maine (\$715), which was \$253 higher than the allocation in Utah. The difference in Basic Grant final allocations between these two states was minimized by the fact that Maine’s SPPE was capped at the maximum while Utah’s SPPE was raised to the minimum.

Overall, remote rural areas received a higher Basic Grant final allocation per formula-eligible child (\$583) than all other locales (table 1.B; figure 1.3). The final allocations among the other locales ranged from \$532 for midsize cities and \$534 for fringe rural areas to \$563 for small suburban areas. The difference between remote rural areas and midsize cities was \$52 or 10 percent.

Figure 1.3. Title I, Part A Basic Grant final allocation per formula-eligible child, 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.

The Basic Grant final allocation per formula-eligible child varied for each of the locales across the states (table 2.B). The pattern of remote rural areas receiving a higher final allocation than all other locales was reflected within many states: there were 15 states in which remote rural areas had the highest final allocation. Distant rural areas had the highest final allocation in 9 states, and fringe rural areas had the highest final allocation in 5 states. Large cities had the highest final allocation in 5 states and the lowest final allocation in 3 states. Within states, the differences in the Basic Grant final allocations per formula-eligible child between the locales with the highest and lowest allocations ranged from \$9 in Rhode Island and Utah to \$297 in Wyoming. Altogether, there were 6 states (Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, and Wyoming) with differences of over \$100.

There were also differences across states for each of the locales. For large cities, the difference between the states with the highest and lowest Basic Grant final allocations per formula-eligible child was \$451 (Alaska had an allocation of \$912 and Florida, North Carolina, and Tennessee had allocations of \$461) (table 2.B). For fringe rural areas and distant rural areas, the differences between the states with the highest and lowest Basic Grant final allocations per formula-eligible child were \$700 or more. Large suburban areas had the smallest differences between the states with the highest and lowest final allocations (\$363).

The lowest poverty quarter received the highest Basic Grant final allocation per formula-eligible child (\$604) (table 1.B; figure 1.3). Districts with higher poverty rates had lower final allocations. For example, the final allocation for the highest poverty quarter was \$558, and the allocation for the second-highest poverty quarter was \$521. The Basic Grant final allocation per formula-eligible child for the lowest poverty quarter was \$84 or 16 percent higher than the final allocation for the second-highest poverty quarter.

There was no consistent pattern regarding Basic Grant final allocations per formula-eligible child within the poverty quarters with respect to district population size. In the highest poverty quarter, the largest districts had a higher final allocation (\$574) than smaller districts, which ranged from \$551 for the smallest districts to \$555 for the second-largest districts, but this pattern contrasted with the pattern for the other poverty quarters (table 4.B). In the other poverty quarters, the largest districts had the lowest Basic Grant final allocation per formula-eligible child. For example, in the lowest poverty quarter, the largest districts had a lower final allocation (\$557) than smaller districts, which ranged from \$581 for the second-largest districts to \$662 for the smallest districts.

The Basic Grant final allocation per formula-eligible child for districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) (\$672) was higher than the allocations for districts of other population sizes (table 1.B; figure 1.3). The final allocations decreased as district population size increased, and districts with a population of 25,000 or more (the largest districts) had the lowest final allocation. For example, the final allocations ranged from \$533 for districts with a population of 25,000 or more to \$672 for districts with a population of less than 300. The difference in the Basic Grant final allocations per formula-eligible child between the district population sizes with the lowest and the highest allocations was \$139 or 26 percent.

Top

Concentration Grant Final Allocation

The Concentration Grant final allocations per formula-eligible child in FY 15 ranged from \$110 in Florida and \$112 in Tennessee, Nevada, Utah, and North Carolina to \$588 in North Dakota and \$871 in Wyoming, a difference between the lowest and the highest of \$761 or 691 percent (table 1.A).

Overall, remote rural areas received a higher Concentration Grant final allocation per formula-eligible child (\$151) than all other locales (table 1.B; figure 1.4). The final allocations among the other locales ranged from \$127 for midsize cities and midsize suburban areas to \$145 for small suburban areas and fringe towns. The difference between the allocations for remote rural areas and midsize suburban areas and midsize cities was \$24 or 19 percent.

Figure 1.4. Title I, Part A Concentration Grant final allocation per formula-eligible child, 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

The Concentration Grant final allocations per formula-eligible child also varied for each of the locales across the states. In 17 states, suburban areas (large, midsize, or small) (10 states) and fringe towns (7 states) received a higher final allocation than all other locales (table 2.C). In 8 states, cities (large, midsize, or small) received a higher final allocation than all other locales. In 20 states, rural areas received a higher final allocation than all other locales. Each locale received the highest Concentration Grant final allocation per formula-eligible child in at least 2 states.

Within states, the differences in the Concentration Grant final allocations per formula-eligible child between the locales with the highest and lowest allocations varied widely. For example, midsize cities had the smallest difference in Concentration Grant final allocations per formula-eligible child between the states with the lowest and highest allocations (\$93), ranging from \$109 in Florida, Idaho, Mississippi, and Utah to \$202 in New Hampshire (table 2.C; figure 1.4). The differences between the states with the lowest and highest final allocations were under \$200 for fringe towns (\$157) and midsize suburban areas (\$164); the differences were over \$500 for large cities (\$27,548), distant rural areas (\$2,138), fringe rural areas (\$839), remote towns (\$701), small suburban areas (\$667), and remote rural areas (\$574).

The lowest poverty quarter received the highest Concentration Grant final allocation per formula-eligible child (\$217). School districts with higher poverty rates had lower final allocations. For example, the final allocation for the highest poverty quarter was \$134, and the final allocation for the second-highest poverty quarter was \$124. The Concentration Grant final allocation per formula-eligible child for the lowest poverty quarter was \$93 or 75 percent higher than the final allocation for the second-highest poverty quarter.

There was no consistent pattern regarding Concentration Grant final allocations per formula-eligible child within the poverty quarters with respect to district population size. In the highest poverty quarter, the largest districts had a higher final allocation (\$140) than smaller districts, which ranged from \$132 for the second-smallest districts to \$133 for both the smallest and second-largest districts, but this pattern was not consistent for districts in lower poverty quarters (table 5.B). In contrast, in both the second-highest and second-lowest poverty quarters, the largest districts had the lowest Concentration Grant final allocations per formula-eligible child. In the lowest poverty quarter, only the largest districts were able to participate through the 6,500 formula-eligible children provision, since the poverty rates were too low for Concentration Grant participation for smaller districts.

The Concentration Grant final allocation per formula-eligible child for districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) (\$194) was higher than the final allocations for districts of other population sizes (table 1.B; figure 1.4). Districts with a population of 25,000 or more (the largest districts) had the lowest final allocation (\$129), and the final allocations decreased as district population size increased. The difference in the Concentration Grant final allocations per formula-eligible child between the district population sizes with the highest and lowest allocations was \$65 or 50 percent.

Top

Targeted Grant Final Allocation

The Targeted Grant final allocations per formula-eligible child in FY 15 ranged from \$196 in Idaho to \$676 in Vermont, a difference of \$481 or 245 percent (table 1.A). Among the states not subject to the state minimum provision, the highest Targeted Grant final allocation per formula-eligible child was in New York (\$422), which was \$226 higher than the final allocation in Idaho.

Overall, large cities received a higher Targeted Grant final allocation per formula-eligible child (\$377) than all other locales (table 1.B; figure 1.5). The final allocations among the other locales ranged from \$218 for fringe towns and \$219 for fringe rural areas to \$290 for remote rural areas. The difference between large cities and fringe towns was \$159 or 73 percent.

Figure 1.5. Title I, Part A Targeted Grant final allocation per formula-eligible child, 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.

The Targeted Grant final allocations per formula-eligible child also varied for each of the locales across the states. In 35 states, large cities (or midsize cities in states where large cities were not applicable) received higher final allocations than all other locales (table 2.D). There were 6 states in which remote rural areas received the highest final allocations compared with all other locales. Within states, the differences in the Targeted Grant final allocations per formula-eligible child between the locales with the highest and lowest final allocations ranged from \$51 in West Virginia to \$355 in Michigan. Altogether, there were 44 states with differences of over \$100.

The highest poverty quarter received the highest Targeted Grant final allocation per formula-eligible child (\$336) (table 1.B; figure 1.5). Districts with lower poverty rates had lower final allocations. For example, the final allocation for the highest poverty quarter was \$119 or 54 percent higher than the final allocation for the lowest poverty quarter (\$218). Within each poverty quarter, the largest districts had a higher Targeted Grant final allocation per formula-eligible child than the smallest districts. The largest districts in the highest poverty quarter had a higher final allocation (\$406) than districts in all other poverty quarters and of all other population sizes, which ranged from \$178 for the second-smallest districts in the lowest poverty quarter to \$347 for the second-largest districts in the highest poverty quarter (table 6.B). Within the highest poverty quarter, the largest districts had a Targeted Grant final allocation per formula-eligible child of \$406, compared with a final allocation of \$294 for the smallest districts in that quarter (a range of \$112 or 38 percent).

Targeted Grant final allocations per formula-eligible child for districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of 25,000 or more (the largest districts) and for districts with a population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) were generally higher than the final allocations for districts of other population sizes. For example, the Targeted Grant final allocations per formula-eligible child ranged from \$229 for districts with a population of 5,000 to 9,999 to \$323 for districts with a population of less than 300 to \$332 for districts with a population of 25,000 or more (table 1.B; figure 1.5). The difference in the final allocations between the district population sizes with the lowest and highest allocations was \$103 or 45 percent.

Top

Education Finance Incentive Grant Final Allocation

The EFIG final allocations per formula-eligible child in FY 15 ranged from \$219 in Idaho to \$684 in Vermont, a difference of \$465 or 212 percent (table 1.A). Among the states not subject to the state minimum provision, the highest EFIG final allocation per formula-eligible child was in Connecticut (\$390), which was \$171 higher than the final allocation in Idaho.

Overall, large cities received a higher EFIG final allocation per formula-eligible child (\$395) than the other locales (table 1.B; figure 1.6). The final allocations among the other locales ranged from \$207 for fringe towns to \$309 for remote rural areas. The difference between large cities and fringe towns was \$189 or 91 percent. In 35 states, large cities (or midsize cities in states where large cities were not applicable) received higher EFIG final allocations per formula-eligible child than all other locales (table 2.E). There were 4 states (Arkansas, Maine, Montana, and South Dakota) in which remote rural areas received the highest final allocations compared with all other locales.

Figure 1.6. Title I, Part A Education Finance Incentive Grant final allocation per formula-eligible child, 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.

The EFIG final allocations per formula-eligible child also varied for each of the locales across the states. For example, large suburban areas had the smallest difference between the states with the lowest and highest final allocations (\$305 or 192 percent), ranging from \$159 in New Mexico to \$463 in Delaware to. The differences between the states with the lowest and highest final allocations were over \$500 for distant rural areas (\$795 or 936 percent), remote rural areas (\$711 or 855 percent), midsize cities (\$682 or 396 percent), fringe rural areas (\$669 or 584 percent), small cities (\$650 or 675 percent), midsize suburban areas (\$637 or 538 percent), distant towns (\$629 or 711 percent), and remote towns (\$528 or 659 percent).

Overall, large cities received higher final allocations per formula-eligible child for both EFIG and Targeted Grants than all other locales, with remote rural areas receiving the second-highest allocations. In contrast, for Basic Grants and Concentration Grants, remote rural areas received higher final allocations than all other locales, followed by small suburban areas.

The highest poverty quarter received the highest EFIG final allocation per formula-eligible child (\$352) (table 1.B; figure 1.6). Districts with lower poverty rates had lower final allocations. For example, the final allocation for the lowest poverty quarter was \$209. The final allocation for the highest poverty quarter was \$352, which was \$143 or 68 percent higher than the allocation for the lowest poverty quarter. Within each poverty quarter, the largest districts had a higher EFIG final allocation per formula-eligible child than the smallest districts. The largest districts in the highest poverty quarter had a higher EFIG final allocation per formula-eligible child (\$420) than districts in all other poverty quarters and of all other population sizes, which ranged from \$162 for the second-smallest districts in the lowest poverty quarter to \$378 for the second-largest districts in the highest poverty quarter (table 7.B). Within the highest poverty quarter, the largest districts had an EFIG final allocation per formula-eligible child of \$420, compared with a final allocation of \$302 for the smallest districts in that quarter (a range of \$118 or 39 percent).

The EFIG final allocations per formula-eligible child for districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of 25,000 or more (the largest districts) and for those with a population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) were generally higher than the final allocations for districts of other population sizes. For example, the final allocations ranged from \$222 for districts with a population of 5,000 to 9,999 to \$333 for districts with a population of less than 300 to \$338 for districts with a population of 25,000 or more (table 1.B; figure 1.6). The difference in the EFIG final allocations per formula-eligible child between the district population sizes with the lowest and highest allocations was \$115 or 52 percent.

Top

Comparisons Between Grants: Basic, Concentration, Targeted, and EFIG

The difference in the total Title I final allocations per formula-eligible child between the states with the lowest and highest allocations (\$1,606) was higher than the differences for the individual grants: Basic Grants (\$659), Concentration Grants (\$761), Targeted Grants (\$481), and EFIG (\$465). Despite the different formulas, the prevailing pattern was for certain states to have among the highest or lowest Title I final allocations per formula-eligible child across all of the grants. In percentage terms, the difference between the states with the highest and lowest total final allocations was 163 percent, which was higher than the difference for Basic Grants (143 percent) but lower than the differences for Concentration Grants (691 percent), Targeted Grants (245 percent), and EFIG (212 percent). This pattern reflects the relatively large final allocation for Basic Grants and the relatively small final allocation for Concentration Grants. For each of the four grants, the majority of the differences between the lowest and highest allocations per formula-eligible child by state were driven by the state minimum provision.

The locales receiving relatively low and relatively high final allocations per formula-eligible child were similar for Basic Grants and Concentration Grants but differed from the pattern for Targeted Grants and EFIG. For Basic Grants and Concentration Grants, remote rural areas received a higher final allocation than all other locales, followed by small suburban areas. For Targeted Grants and EFIG, large cities received a higher final allocation than all other locales, followed by remote rural areas. Chapter 2 contains a more detailed discussion of the range in locales across states.

The highest poverty quarter had the highest total Title I final allocation per formula-eligible child (\$1,381) (table 1.B; figure 1.2), which was the general pattern for Targeted Grants and EFIG but not for Basic Grants and Concentration Grants. The distribution of Targeted Grant and EFIG allocations favoring districts in the highest poverty quarter resulted in higher total Title I final allocations per formula-eligible child for the highest poverty quarter, even though the highest poverty quarter received lower allocations than the lowest poverty quarter for Basic Grants and Concentration Grants. For the total Title I final allocation, as well as for Targeted Grants and EFIG, districts with lower poverty rates had lower allocations.

For Targeted Grants and EFIG, within each poverty quarter, districts with the largest 5- to 17-year-old populations consistently had higher final allocations per formula-eligible child than smaller districts (tables 3.B, 4.B, 5.B, 6.B, and 7.B), but this pattern was not true for Basic Grants and Concentration Grants. Within the highest poverty quarter, the largest districts did have the highest final allocations per formula-eligible child in all four grants.

Districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) had a higher total Title I final allocation per formula-eligible child (\$1,442) than districts of other population sizes; this pattern was consistent for Basic Grants and Concentration Grants (table 1.B; figure 1.2). Similar to the pattern for Targeted Grants and EFIG, where districts with a population of 25,000 or more (the largest districts) had the highest final allocations, the second-highest total Title I final allocation was for districts with a population of 25,000 or more (\$1,323).

Top

Percentage Distribution of Title I Total Allocations and Formula-Eligible Children, by State

Comparing the distribution of Title I allocations and the distribution of Title I formula-eligible children by state provides a reference point for analyzing the distribution of the Title I funds (table 1.C). Nationally, 21.4 percent of 5- to 17-year-olds were eligible for Title I in FY 15. Eighteen states and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico had eligibility rates that were higher than the national average (figure 1.7). Puerto Rico (55.9 percent), the District of Columbia (32.5 percent), and Mississippi (32.2 percent) had the highest percentages of formula-eligible children. Conversely, 32 states had eligibility rates that were lower than the national average. New Hampshire (9.9 percent) and North Dakota (11.8 percent) had the lowest percentages of formula-eligible children in the United States.

Figure 1.7. Difference between the percentage of formula-eligible 5- to 17-year-olds and the percentage of total Title I, Part A allocations, by state or jurisdiction: 2015

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.

The federal allocation formulas use a series of provisions that adjust eligibility such that there is not a 1:1 correspondence between the percentage of the formula-eligible population in a state and the percentage of federal funds allocated to that state. For example, 13.1 percent of formula-eligible children were in California and 5.9 percent of formula-eligible children were in New York. However, California was allocated 11.8 percent of all Title I funds—1.3 percentage points lower than its percentage of the formula-eligible population. This is in contrast to New York, which was allocated 7.7 percent of all Title I funds—1.8 percentage points higher than its percentage of the formula-eligible population. The difference between the percentage of the formula-eligible population and the percentage of Title I funds allocated to each state is due to the federal funding formulas.

Twenty-five states and Puerto Rico had smaller percentages of the total Title I funds than their percentages of the formula-eligible population. The states with the lowest allocations relative to their percentages of the formula-eligible population were Texas (1.3 percentage points lower), California (1.3 percentage points lower), and Florida (0.5 of a percentage point lower). Conversely, 25 states and the District of Columbia had allocations that were higher than their percentages of the formula-eligible population. The states with the largest share of funding relative to their percentages of the formula-eligible population were New York (1.8 percentage points higher), Illinois (0.9 of a percentage point higher), and Pennsylvania (0.7 of a percentage point higher).

Top

Percentage Distribution of Title I Total Allocations and Formula-Eligible Children, by School District Characteristics

School districts in most locales had lower percentages of the total Title I funds than their percentages of the formula-eligible population (table 1.D). In contrast to this general pattern, large cities received a higher percentage of the Title I funds (28.1 percent) than their percentage of the formula-eligible population (23.5 percent), a difference of 4.6 percentage points. Although they have 2.3 percent of the formula-eligible children in the United States, remote rural areas received an allocation of 2.5 percent of the total Title I funds, a difference of 0.2 of a percentage point. The locales with the smallest shares of Title I funds relative to their percentages of the formula-eligible population were large suburban areas, which had 29.7 percent of the formula-eligible children and received 27.7 percent of the funds (2.0 percentage points lower), and fringe rural areas, which had 6.4 percent of the formula-eligible population and received 5.6 percent of the funds (0.8 of a percentage point lower).

As might be expected, higher poverty districts received a higher percentage of Title I funds than lower poverty districts. Districts in the highest poverty quarter had 43.0 percent of the formula-eligible population and received 48.4 percent of the Title I funds (5.4 percentage points higher). In contrast, districts in the second-highest poverty quarter had 28.3 percent of the formula-eligible population and received 26.5 percent of the funds (1.8 percentage points lower). Also, districts in the second-lowest poverty quarter and the lowest poverty quarter had lower percentages of the Title I funds compared with their percentages of the formula-eligible population (2.0 and 1.6 percentage points lower, respectively).

Districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of 25,000 or more (the largest districts) and districts with populations under 600 had higher percentages of Title I funds than their percentages of the formula-eligible population, while districts of intermediate sizes had smaller percentages of the funds compared with their percentages of formula-eligible children (figure 1.8). For example, districts with a population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) received 0.8 percent of the Title I funds but had 0.7 percent of the formula-eligible population (0.1 of a percentage point higher). Districts with a population of 25,000 or more received 48.7 percent of the Title I funds but had 45.1 percent of the formula-eligible population (3.6 percentage points higher). This difference was even higher for the 100 largest districts (4.1 percentage points higher). In contrast, districts with a population of 600 to 999, districts with a population of 1,000 to 2,499, districts with a population of 2,500 to 4,999, districts with a population of 5,000 to 9,999, and districts with a population of 10,000 to 24,999 received allocations that were less than their percentages of the formula-eligible population.

Figure 1.8. Difference between the percentage of formula-eligible 5- to 17-year-olds and the percentage of total Title I, Part A allocations, by school district population size: 2015

# Rounds to zero.
1 These districts are defined as the 100 largest based on the size of their 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.

Variations Within School Districts

The congressional mandate requested that this report look at allocations within school attendance areas. This analysis was not feasible based on currently available information. However, it was possible to conduct some analyses on how the Title I funds were distributed within school districts. Table I.A shows that 95 percent of children who received Title I services participated through schoolwide programs in 2014–15. Table 1.E shows the distribution of students by the proportion of schools within their district that had schoolwide Title I programs in 2015–16. In low-poverty districts (i.e., those with less than 10 percent poverty), relatively few students were in districts that had high percentages of schools that were eligible for schoolwide programs. There were no schools eligible for schoolwide programs for more than half the students (52 percent) in low-poverty districts. On the other hand, in very high-poverty districts (those with 30 percent poverty or more), only 2 percent of students were in districts where no schools were eligible for schoolwide programs.

In low-poverty districts, 0.9 percent of students were in districts where 75 percent of more of the schools were eligible for schoolwide programs, and 0.5 percent of students were in districts where all schools were eligible for schoolwide programs. In contrast, in very high-poverty districts, 66 percent of students were in districts where 75 percent or more of the schools were eligible for schoolwide programs, and 22 percent of students were in districts where all schools were eligible for schoolwide programs. Note that, in general, small districts tended to cluster at either having zero or all schools eligible for schoolwide programs because of the small number of schools (e.g., if there is one school in the district, it will either have no schools eligible or all schools eligible).

Overall, 60 percent of the students were in districts where at least 50 percent of the schools were eligible for schoolwide programs. So, while high- and low-poverty rates in districts do translate to proportionally more or less schools eligible for schoolwide programs, many low-poverty districts do have at least some schoolwide programs.

Top

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

When the total Title I final allocations were adjusted by the American Community Survey-Comparable Wage Index (ACS-CWI), the value of allocations provided to states and school districts increased from \$14.3 billion to \$15.1 billion (table 1.AA). Since the cost adjustment increased the relative value of federal funding overall, this means that Title I funding was disproportionately allocated to states and districts with lower costs of living. After applying the ACS-CWI, the cost-adjusted total Title I final allocation per formula-eligible child was \$1,299, which was about \$73 higher than the unadjusted final allocation. The cost adjustment had the largest impact on states with relatively low and high costs of living. Idaho and Utah—two states with relatively low costs of living—no longer had the lowest total Title I final allocations per formula-eligible child after the cost adjustment. Instead, states with higher costs of living, like California (\$1,028) and Colorado (\$1,112), had the lowest final allocations. Many states subject to the state minimum provision also had lower costs of living, so the total Title I final allocations per formula-eligible child for some states increased by relatively large amounts after the cost adjustment; for example, the unadjusted final allocation per formula-eligible child in Vermont was \$2,590, and the cost-adjusted final allocation was \$3,016.

Applying the ACS-CWI to the total Title I final allocations per formula-eligible child resulted in the largest change for districts in remote rural areas. Due to the relatively lower cost of living in these areas, the total Title I final allocation per formula-eligible child in remote rural areas increased by \$307 when cost adjusted (from \$1,313 to \$1,620) (table 1.BB). Similarly, the total Title I final allocation per formula-eligible child in remote towns was \$252 higher after applying the cost adjustment. Conversely, large cities were the only locale to have a decrease (of \$45) in the final allocation when cost adjusted (from \$1,466 to \$1,421).

The differences in the cost-adjusted total Title I final allocations per formula-eligible child among the poverty quarters were larger than the differences for the unadjusted final allocations. After the cost adjustment, the highest poverty quarter received a final allocation of \$1,440, compared with \$1,381 before the cost adjustment. The lowest poverty quarter received a final allocation of \$1,044 after the cost adjustment, compared with \$1,023 before the cost adjustment. The difference between the highest and lowest poverty quarters after applying the ACS-CWI (\$396) was larger than the difference for the unadjusted final allocations (\$357).

The pattern of the smallest districts having higher total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child than larger districts persisted when the ACS-CWI was applied. For example, the difference in the total Title I final allocations per formula-eligible child between the smallest and largest districts was \$119 before the cost adjustment and \$402 after the cost adjustment. This indicates that the purchasing power of the allocations for the smallest districts was greater than it was for the largest districts.

When the ACS-CWI was applied, 18 states and Puerto Rico had smaller percentages of total Title I final allocations than their percentages of the formula-eligible population (table 1.CC). The states with the lowest final allocations relative to their percentages of the formula-eligible population were California (2.7 percentage points lower), Texas (1.3 percentage points lower), and Arizona (0.3 of a percentage point lower). In contrast, 32 states and the District of Columbia had higher percentages of total Title I final allocations than their percentages of the formula-eligible population using the cost-adjusted data. The states with the highest percentages of the Title I funds relative to their percentages of the formula-eligible population were New York (1.1 percentage point higher), Pennsylvania (0.8 of a percentage point higher), Ohio (0.6 of a percentage point higher), and Illinois (0.6 of a percentage point higher). Ten states and the District of Columbia had a difference of less than 0.05 of a percentage point between their percentages of Title I funds and their percentages of the formula-eligible population.

Applying the ACS-CWI increased the relative difference of the allocations in low-cost areas compared with high-cost areas. After the cost adjustment, large cities received a higher percentage of the total Title I final allocations (25.7 percent) than their share of formula-eligible children (23.5 percent), a difference of 2.2 percentage points (table 1.DD). This difference is less than the difference prior to the adjustment (4.6 percentage points). In contrast, with 2.3 percent of the formula-eligible population, remote rural areas received 2.9 percent of the Title I funds when cost adjusted, a difference of 0.6 of percentage point. This difference is larger than before the adjustment (0.2 of a percentage point). After the adjustment, large suburban areas had the largest difference between their percentage of the Title I funds (26.6 percent) and their share of the formula-eligible population (29.7 percent)—a difference of 3.2 percentage points.

When the ACS-CWI was applied, the highest poverty quarter still received a higher percentage of Title I funds than the lowest poverty quarter, but the difference was smaller after the cost adjustment. The highest poverty quarter had 43.0 percent of the formula-eligible population and received 47.6 percent of the cost-adjusted Title I funds (4.6 percentage points higher than the formula-eligible population). In contrast, the second-highest poverty quarter had 28.3 percent of the formula-eligible population and received 27.3 percent of the cost-adjusted Title I funds (1.0 percentage point lower). Also, the second-lowest poverty quarter and the lowest poverty quarter had lower percentages of the cost-adjusted Title I funds compared with their percentages of the formula-eligible population (1.8 and 1.9 percentage points lower, respectively).

Many of the larger districts are located in higher-cost areas. After the cost adjustment, the largest districts (those with a 5- to 17-year-old population of 25,000 or more) had 45.1 percent of the formula-eligible population and received 46.1 percent of the cost-adjusted Title I funds, a difference of 1.0 percentage point; the unadjusted difference of 3.6 percentage points was larger. Districts with a population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) had 0.7 percent of the formula-eligible population and received 0.9 percent of the cost-adjusted Title I funds, a difference of 0.2 of percentage point; the unadjusted difference was 0.1 of a percentage point. Conversely, districts with a population of 5,000 to 9,999 and districts with a population of 10,000 to 24,999 had lower percentages of the cost-adjusted Title I funds compared with their percentages of the formula-eligible population (0.8 of a percentage point and 1.6 percentage points lower, respectively).

Top