- Chapters
- Chapter 1: Fiscal Year 2015 Final Allocations for Title I
- Chapter 2: Title I Allocations by Locale and State
- Chapter 3: Total Title I Allocations—Formula Analyses
- Chapter 4: Basic Grants—Formula Analyses
- Chapter 5: Concentration Grants—Formula Analyses
- Chapter 6: Targeted Grants—Formula Analyses
- Chapter 7: Education Finance Incentive Grants (EFIG)—Formula Analyses
- Bibliography
- Appendix A
- Appendix B
- Appendix C
Chapter 2: Title I Funds by Locale and State
This chapter focuses on state-level fiscal year 2015 (FY 15) average Title I and individual grant allocations per formula-eligible child across the 12 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) geographic locales (all allocations herein are averages). Data are presented by locale nationally (i.e., for all states) and by locale within each state. It is important to note that not every state has school districts representing all the locales. Although 18 states have at least one district representing each of the locales, the majority of states do not. The District of Columbia has only a large city locale and Puerto Rico has only a large suburban area locale. For this reason, this chapter excludes both the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico when discussing differences among the states. States will show as not applicable for specific locales that are not present within the state. It should be noted that there are relatively large ranges in the allocations per formula-eligible child among locales within some states. In some cases, these relatively large ranges may be affected by hold harmless amounts for specific districts. States receiving state minimum allocations will typically have larger allocations per formula-eligible child than states not receiving a minimum allocation. The allocations are also adjusted to reflect local variations in purchasing power (using the American Community Survey-Comparable Wage Index), and these adjusted allocations are compared with the unadjusted allocations (in current dollars).
Highlights
- In 26 of the 32 states with large cities, large cities received a higher total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child than all other locales (table 2.A; table 2.1). In 8 of the 43 states with remote rural areas, remote rural areas received a higher Title I allocation per formula-eligible child than all other locales. In the majority of states (42), either suburban areas or towns of any type received the lowest Title I allocation per formula-eligible child.
- The pattern of remote rural areas receiving the highest Basic Grant allocation per formula-eligible child compared with all other locales was reflected across many states; in 15 of the 43 states with remote rural areas, remote rural areas received the highest allocation (table 2.B; table 2.2). Distant rural areas received the highest Basic Grant allocation per formula-eligible child in 9 of the 47 states with distant rural areas, and fringe rural areas received the highest allocation in 5 of the 48 states with fringe rural areas.
- In 17 states, suburban areas (large, midsize, or small) (10 states) and fringe towns (7 states) received a higher Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child than all other locales (table 2.C; table 2.3). In 8 states, cities (large, midsize, or small) received a higher Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child than all other locales. In 20 states, rural areas received a higher Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child than all other locales.
- In 28 of the 32 states with large cities, large cities received a higher Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child than all other locales (table 2.D; table 2.4). In 6 of the 43 states with remote rural areas, remote rural areas received a higher Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child than all other locales.
- In 28 of the 32 states with large cities, large cities received a higher EFIG allocation per formula-eligible child than all other locales (table 2.E; table 2.5).
Total Title I
Large cities had a higher national total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,466) than all other locales, which ranged from $1,070 in fringe rural areas to $1,313 in remote rural areas (table 2.A). The general pattern of large cities and remote rural areas having the highest total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child was reflected across many states. In the majority of states, large cities had higher allocations than all other locales. In 26 of the 32 states with large cities, large cities had the highest total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child compared with all other locales; there was no state in which large cities had the lowest allocation (table 2.A; table 2.1). In 8 states, remote rural areas had the highest allocation; however, 7 of these states had no large cities. Only in Hawaii did remote rural areas have the lowest total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child compared with all other locales within the state.
Table 2.1. Number of states in which each school district locale received the highest and lowest total Title I, Part A allocation per formula-eligible child, by school district locale: 2015
| School district locale | Number of states in which locale is present |
Number of states in which locale had the highest allocation |
Number of states in which locale had the lowest allocation |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| City | Large | 32 | 26 | 0 |
| Midsize | 37 | 8 | 0 | |
| Small | 49 | 0 | 1 | |
| Suburban | Large | 41 | 2 | 5 |
| Midsize | 42 | 0 | 10 | |
| Small | 39 | 2 | 10 | |
| Town | Fringe | 42 | 0 | 14 |
| Distant | 43 | 1 | 1 | |
| Remote | 43 | 1 | 2 | |
| Rural | Fringe | 48 | 0 | 4 |
| Distant | 47 | 2 | 2 | |
| Remote | 43 | 8 | 1 | |
| 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 UniverseSurvey," 2013–14, Provisional Version 1a. | ||||
Within states, the differences in the total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child between the locales with the lowest and highest allocations ranged from $154 in West Virginia to $2,146 in Wyoming (excluding those states with only one locale type) (table 2.A; figure 2.1). For example, in Wyoming the total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child ranged from $1,390 in fringe rural areas to $3,536 in distant rural areas, a difference of $2,146. The differences in the total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child between the locales with the highest and lowest allocations within a state exceeded $1,000 in Michigan, New Hampshire, and Wyoming. This difference within states was between $500 and $999 in 20 states and was under $200 in 2 states (West Virginia and South Carolina).
NOTE: The school district locales receiving the highest and lowest allocations vary by state or jurisdiction. The total reflects the weighted average of the locale types.
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 difference in the total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child between the states with the lowest and highest allocations was $1,606 (ranging from $984 in Idaho to $2,590 in Vermont). The difference in the total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child between the states with the lowest and highest allocations was smallest for large suburban areas ($954), ranging from $803 in New Mexico to $1,757 in Delaware (table 2.A; figure 2.2). The largest differences were for distant rural areas ($2,864), remote rural areas ($2,089), and distant towns ($1,900).
NOTE: This figure plots the allocation for each school district locale for every state or jurisdiction with that locale.
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.
Basic Grants
Basic Grants amounted to $6.4 billion or 45 percent of all Title I funds in FY 15, and the allocation per formula-eligible child was $550. Although large cities received the highest national total Title I allocation per formula-eligible child, this was not true for Basic Grants. Remote rural areas received the highest national Basic Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ($583) (table 2.B). Midsized cities received the lowest allocation ($532). The pattern of remote rural areas receiving a higher Basic Grant allocation per formula-eligible child than all other locales was reflected in many states: there were 15 states in which remote rural areas had the highest allocation (table 2.B; table 2.2). There were 9 states in which distant rural areas had the highest allocation and 5 states in which fringe rural areas had the highest allocation. Large cities had the highest Basic Grant allocation per formula-eligible child in 5 states and the lowest allocation in 3 states.
Table 2.2. Number of states in which each school district locale received the highest and lowest Title I, Part A Basic Grant allocation per formula-eligible child, by school district locale: 2015
| School district locale | Number of states in which locale is present |
Number of states in which locale had the highest allocation |
Number of states in which locale had the lowest allocation |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| City | Large | 32 | 5 | 3 |
| Midsize | 37 | 4 | 8 | |
| Small | 49 | 4 | 4 | |
| Suburban | Large | 41 | 0 | 3 |
| Midsize | 42 | 1 | 9 | |
| Small | 39 | 4 | 10 | |
| Town | Fringe | 42 | 2 | 6 |
| Distant | 43 | 1 | 1 | |
| Remote | 43 | 0 | 2 | |
| Rural | Fringe | 48 | 5 | 1 |
| Distant | 47 | 9 | 0 | |
| Remote | 43 | 15 | 3 | |
| 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 difference in the national Basic Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the locales with the highest and lowest allocations was $52, which was smaller than the difference for the total Title I allocations ($396) (table 2.B). In percentage terms, the difference in the national Basic Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the locales with the highest and lowest allocations was 10 percent, which was smaller than the difference for the national total Title I allocations (37 percent). Within states, the differences in the Basic Grant 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 (table 2.B; figure 2.3). Altogether, there were 6 states (Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, and Wyoming) with differences of over $100.
NOTE: The school district locales receiving the highest and lowest allocations vary by state or jurisdiction. The total reflects the weighted average of the locale types.
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 allocation per formula-eligible child varied for each of the locales across the states. For example, for remote rural areas, the difference between the states with the highest and lowest allocations was $691 (Vermont had an allocation of $1,152, and Florida and Nevada had allocations of $461) (table 2.B; figure 2.4). For large cities, the difference between the states with the highest and lowest allocations was $451 (Alaska had an allocation of $912, and Florida, North Carolina, and Tennessee had allocations of $461). This state range for large cities was smaller than the range for the total Title I allocations ($1,151). For fringe rural areas and distant rural areas, the differences in the Basic Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the states with the highest and lowest allocations were $773 or more. Large suburban areas had the smallest differences between the states with the highest and lowest allocations ($363).
NOTE: This figure plots the allocation for each school district locale for every state or jurisdiction with that locale.
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.
Concentration Grants
Concentration Grants amounted to $1.3 billion or 9 percent of all Title I funds in FY 15, and the allocation per formula-eligible child was $134. Nationally, remote rural areas had the highest Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ($151), while midsize cities and midsize suburban areas had the lowest allocations (both $127) (table 2.C). The difference in the national Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the locales with the highest and lowest allocations was $24, which was smaller than the differences for the national Basic Grant allocations ($52) and the national total Title I allocations ($396). In percentage terms, the difference in the national Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the locales with the highest and lowest allocations was 19 percent, which was larger than the difference for the Basic Grant allocations (10 percent) and smaller than the difference for the Total Title I allocations (37 percent).
Compared with Basic Grants, the differences in the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the locales with the highest and lowest allocations were more varied across the states. There were 10 states in which suburban areas (large, midsize, or small) had the highest Concentration Grant allocation compared with all other locales; 7 states in which fringe towns had the highest allocation; 8 states in which cities (large, midsize, or small) had the highest allocation; and 20 states in which rural areas (fringe, distant, or remote) had the highest allocation (table 2.C; table 2.3). Unlike with Basic Grants, each locale received the highest Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child in at least 2 states.
Table 2.3. Number of states in which each school district locale received the highest and lowest Title I, Part A Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child, by school district locale: 2015
| School district locale | Number of states in which locale is present |
Number of states in which locale had the highest allocation |
Number of states in which locale had the lowest allocation |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| City | Large | 32 | 3 | 3 |
| Midsize | 34 | 3 | 9 | |
| Small | 44 | 2 | 6 | |
| Suburban | Large | 39 | 3 | 4 |
| Midsize | 36 | 2 | 8 | |
| Small | 32 | 5 | 7 | |
| Town | Fringe | 37 | 7 | 4 |
| Distant | 42 | 3 | 2 | |
| Remote | 43 | 2 | 1 | |
| Rural | Fringe | 44 | 6 | 0 |
| Distant | 46 | 7 | 2 | |
| Remote | 42 | 7 | 4 | |
| 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. | ||||
Within states, the differences in the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the locales with the highest and lowest allocations ranged from $2 in Hawaii to $27,335 in Alaska (table 2.C; figure 2.5). This large difference in Alaska was due to a Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child of $27,658 for large cities, arising from unusual circumstances related to the hold harmless provision.1 If Alaska were excluded from the analysis of the range within states, the largest range would be in Wyoming ($1,564). Altogether, there were 14 states with differences of over $100, compared with 6 states for Basic Grants.
1 Data for Alaska and some data for Wyoming have been excluded from this figure because these states have outliers.
NOTE: The school district locales receiving the highest and lowest allocations vary by state or jurisdiction. The total reflects the weighted average of the locale types.
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 difference in the Concentration Grant final allocations per formula-eligible child between the states with the lowest and highest allocations was $761 (ranging from $110 in Florida to $871 in Wyoming) (table 2.C). The Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child also varied for each of the locales across the states. For example, the difference in the Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the states with the lowest and highest allocations was smallest for midsize cities ($93), ranging from $109 in Florida, Idaho, and Utah to $202 in New Hampshire (table 2.C; figure 2.6). The differences between the states with the lowest and highest allocations were over $500 for about half of the locales: distant rural areas ($2,138), fringe rural areas ($839), remote towns ($701), small suburban areas ($667), and remote rural areas ($574) (if Alaska is included, large cities would also have a difference of $27,548).
NOTE: This figure plots the allocation for each school district locale for every state or jurisdiction with that locale.
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.
Targeted Grants
Targeted Grants amounted to $3.3 billion or 23 percent of all Title I funds in FY 15, and the allocation per formula-eligible child was $282. The locales receiving relatively high Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child were different from those for Basic Grants and Concentration Grants. Large cities had a higher national Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ($377) than all other locales (table 2.D), in contrast to Basic Grants and Concentration Grants, where remote rural areas had the highest allocations. The Targeted Grant formula employs a percentage weighting component, which increases the allocations for school districts with high poverty rates, as well as a number weighting component, which increases the allocations for large districts regardless of poverty percentage. The national Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child among the other locales ranged from $218 for fringe towns to $290 for remote rural areas. The difference in the national Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the locales with the highest and lowest allocations was $159, which was larger than the differences for the national Basic Grant allocations ($52) and national Concentration Grant allocations ($24) but smaller than the difference for the national total Title I allocations ($396). In percentage terms, the difference in the national Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the locales with the highest and lowest allocations was 73 percent, which was larger than the differences for the national Basic Grant allocations (10 percent), national Concentration Grant allocations (19 percent), and national total Title I allocations (37 percent).
In 28 of the 32 states with large cities, large cities had higher Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child than any of the other locales (table 2.D; table 2.4). There were 6 states in which remote rural areas had the highest Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child compared with all other locales.
Table 2.4. Number of states in which each school district locale received the highest and lowest Title I, Part A Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child, by school district locale: 2015
| School district locale | Number of states in which locale is present |
Number of states in which locale had the highest allocation |
Number of states in which locale had the lowest allocation |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| City | Large | 32 | 28 | 0 |
| Midsize | 37 | 9 | 0 | |
| Small | 49 | 0 | 0 | |
| Suburban | Large | 41 | 2 | 1 |
| Midsize | 42 | 0 | 9 | |
| Small | 39 | 1 | 10 | |
| Town | Fringe | 42 | 1 | 15 |
| Distant | 43 | 0 | 1 | |
| Remote | 43 | 1 | 3 | |
| Rural | Fringe | 47 | 0 | 4 |
| Distant | 47 | 2 | 6 | |
| Remote | 43 | 6 | 1 | |
| 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. | ||||
Within states, the differences in the Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the locales with the highest and lowest allocations ranged from $51 in West Virginia to $355 in Michigan (table 2.D; figure 2.7). Altogether, there were 44 states with differences of over $100, compared with 14 states for Concentration Grants and 6 states for Basic Grants.
NOTE: The school district locales receiving the highest and lowest allocations vary by state or jurisdiction. The total reflects the weighted average of the locale types.
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 difference in the Targeted Grant final allocations per formula-eligible child between the states with the lowest and highest allocations was $481 (ranging from $196 in Idaho to $676 in Vermont) (table 2.D). The Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child also varied for each of the locales across the states. For example, the difference in the Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the states with the lowest and highest allocations was smallest for large suburban areas ($308), ranging from $151 in Iowa to $460 in Delaware (table 2.D; figure 2.8). The differences between the states with the lowest and highest allocations were over $500 for more than half the locales: distant rural areas ($731), remote rural areas ($611), fringe rural areas ($590), small cities ($584), midsize suburban areas ($554), distant towns ($537), and midsize cities ($508).
NOTE: This figure plots the allocation for each school district locale for every state or jurisdiction with that locale.
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.
Education Finance Incentive Grants
Education Finance Incentive Grants (EFIG) amounted to $3.3 billion or 23 percent of all Title I funds in FY 15, and the allocation per formula-eligible child was $282. The locales receiving relatively low and relatively high EFIG allocations per formula-eligible child were different from those for Basic Grants and Concentration Grants but similar to those for Targeted Grants. Large cities had a higher national EFIG allocation per formula-eligible child ($395) than all other locales (table 2.E). The national EFIG allocation per formula-eligible child among the other locales ranged from $207 for fringe towns to $309 for remote rural areas. In 28 of the 32 states with large cities, large cities had higher EFIG allocations per formula-eligible child than all other locales (table 2.E; table 2.5). There were 4 states (Arkansas, Maine, Montana, and South Dakota) in which remote rural areas received the highest EFIG allocations per formula-eligible child compared with all other locales.
Table 2.5. Number of states in which each school district locale received the highest and lowest Title I, Part A Education Finance Incentive Grant allocation per formula-eligible child, by school district locale: 2015
| School district locale | Number of states in which locale is present |
Number of states in which locale had the highest allocation |
Number of states in which locale had the lowest allocation |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| City | Large | 32 | 28 | 0 |
| Midsize | 37 | 9 | 0 | |
| Small | 49 | 0 | 0 | |
| Suburban | Large | 41 | 2 | 0 |
| Midsize | 42 | 0 | 9 | |
| Small | 39 | 1 | 9 | |
| Town | Fringe | 42 | 0 | 9 |
| Distant | 43 | 0 | 1 | |
| Remote | 43 | 1 | 4 | |
| Rural | Fringe | 47 | 1 | 4 |
| Distant | 47 | 3 | 5 | |
| Remote | 43 | 4 | 1 | |
| 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. | ||||
Comparisons Among Title I Grants
The difference in the national EFIG allocations per formula-eligible child between the locales with the highest and lowest allocations was $189 (table 2.E), which was larger than the differences for the national Basic Grant allocations ($52), national Concentration Grant allocations ($24), and national Targeted Grant allocations ($159) but smaller than the difference for the difference for the national total Title I allocations ($396). In percentage terms, the difference in the national EFIG allocations per formula-eligible child between the locales with the highest and lowest allocations was 91 percent, which was larger than the differences for the national Basic Grant allocations (10 percent), national Concentration Grant allocations (19 percent), national total Title I allocations (37 percent), and national Targeted Grant allocations (73 percent).
Within states, the differences in the EFIG allocations per formula-eligible child between the locales with the highest and lowest allocations ranged from $78 in West Virginia to $541 in Michigan (table 2.E; figure 2.9). These were the same states that had the highest and lowest allocations for Targeted Grants. West Virginia was the only state with a difference of less than $100. Altogether, there were 49 states with differences of over $100, compared with 44 states for Targeted Grants, 14 states for Concentration Grants, and 6 states for Basic Grants.
NOTE: The school district locales receiving the highest and lowest allocations vary by state or jurisdiction. The total reflects the weighted average of the locale types.
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 overall difference in the EFIG allocations per formula-eligible child between the states with the lowest and highest allocations was $465 (ranging from $219 in Utah to $684 in Vermont) (table 2.E). This difference was lower than the difference for the Concentration Grant final allocations ($761), the Basic Grant final allocations ($659), and the Targeted Grant final allocations ($481). The EFIG allocations per formula-eligible child also varied for each of the locales across the states. For example, the difference in the EFIG allocations per formula-eligible child between the states with the highest and lowest allocations was smallest for large suburban areas ($305), ranging from $463 in Delaware to $159 in New Mexico (table 2.E; figure 2.10). The differences between the states with the highest and lowest allocations were over $500 for distant rural areas ($795), remote rural areas ($711), midsize cities ($682), fringe rural areas ($669), small cities ($650), midsize suburban areas ($637), distant towns ($629), and remote towns ($528).
NOTE: This figure plots the allocation for each school district locale for every state or jurisdiction with that locale.
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.
Cost Adjustment Using the American Community Survey-Comparable Wage Index (ACS-CWI)
Applying the American Community Survey-Comparable Wage Index (ACS-CWI) generally resulted in relatively higher purchasing power for Title I allocations per formula-eligible child for rural areas and relatively lower purchasing power for large cities. The purchasing power of the allocation is referred to as the cost-adjusted allocation.2 For example, compared to the unadjusted allocations, the cost-adjusted national Title I allocation per formula-eligible child was $307 higher for remote rural areas, while the cost-adjusted allocation was $45 lower for large cities (table 2.AA). When using the ACS-CWI, remote rural areas had a higher cost-adjusted national Title I allocation per formula-eligible child ($1,620) than all other locales, which ranged from $1,161 for large suburban areas to $1,421 for large cities. Across states, the cost-adjusted total Title I allocations per formula-eligible child ranged from $1,028 in California to $3,016 in Vermont, a difference of $1,988. This difference was $381 larger than the difference between the states with the lowest and highest unadjusted allocations.
After the ACS-CWI was applied, remote rural areas (or distant rural areas in states where remote rural areas were not applicable) received the highest cost-adjusted Basic Grant allocations per formula-eligible child in 27 states, compared with 16 states without application of the ACS-CWI (table 2.BB). After the ACS-CWI was applied, large cities (or midsize cities in states where large cities were not applicable) did not receive the highest allocation in any state but received the lowest allocation in 26 states. Compared with the unadjusted allocations, applying the ACS-CWI generally increased the differences in the Basic Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the locales with the highest and lowest allocations, both across and within states. Across states, the largest cost-adjusted difference was for fringe rural areas ($1,243), which ranged from $503 in California to $1,746 in Wyoming. Cost-adjusted differences of over $800 were also observed for remote towns ($811), remote rural areas ($855), small suburban areas ($882), and distant rural areas ($882). The smallest difference was for large cities ($384). Within states, the differences in the cost-adjusted Basic Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the locales with the highest and lowest allocations were over $100 in 43 states, compared with only 6 states without the cost adjustment.
After applying the ACS-CWI, the national Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ranged from $131 for large cities to $186 for remote rural areas (table 2.CC). There were 10 states in which distant rural areas received the highest Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child and 8 states in which remote rural areas received the highest allocation. There were no states in which midsize suburban areas had the highest allocation and only 1 state (Alaska) in which large cities had the highest allocation. The differences in the cost-adjusted Concentration Grant allocations per formula-eligible child across the states were smaller for large cities and remained about the same for midsize cities, compared with the unadjusted allocations. In the other 10 locales, the differences increased after the cost adjustment, ranging from an increase of $29 for midsize suburban areas to an increase of $230 for distant rural areas.
Applying the ACS-CWI increased the difference in the Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the states with the highest and lowest allocations to $562 (the difference without the adjustment was $481) (table 2.DD). Since some of the highest Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child were in high-cost areas, such as large cities, the differences between the locales with the highest and lowest allocations decreased in many states after the cost adjustment. The cost-adjusted national Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child ranged from $243 for fringe towns to $364 for large cities, a difference of $121, which was smaller than the difference for the unadjusted national allocations ($159).
Similar to the patterns for other grants, applying the ACS-CWI increased the EFIG allocations per formula-eligible child in lower-cost areas and decreased them in higher-cost areas. Applying the ACS-CWI increased the difference in the EFIG allocations per formula-eligible child between the states with the highest and lowest allocations to $577 (the difference without the adjustment was $465) (table 2.EE). Since some of the highest EFIG allocations per formula-eligible child were in high-cost areas, such as large cities, the differences between the locales with the highest and lowest allocations decreased in many states after the cost adjustment. The cost-adjusted national EFIG allocations per formula-eligible child ranged from $231 for fringe towns to $383 for large cities, a difference of $152, which was smaller than the difference for the unadjusted national allocations ($189).
1 One large city school district in Alaska (Anchorage) received a Concentration Grant allocation per formula-eligible child of $651,321 due to the “4 year grand-father” provision in the Title I hold harmless procedures, although no students were eligible for Concentration Grants in Anchorage in 2015. Another large city school district (Chugach) had a small number of formula-eligible children and was combined with Anchorage, creating an unusually high computation.
2
Districts and states do not actually receive different allocations based on the ACS-CWI.
