Chapter 6: Targeted Grants—Formula Analyses

Targeted Grants provide additional funds to school districts based on a system that allocates proportionately more funds to districts with higher numbers or percentages of formula-eligible children. To qualify for a Targeted Grant, a district must have at least 10 formula-eligible children ages 5 to 17, and that number must represent at least 5 percent of the district’s 5- to 17-year-old population. Targeted Grants accounted for approximately $3.3 billion (23 percent) of Title I funds in fiscal year 2015 (FY 15) (table 1.A), and the average Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child was $282 (all allocations herein are averages).

Top

Formula Alternatives

Targeted Grants have some of the same formula provisions as the other grant formulas but have additional factors 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, several unique formula alternatives are examined, compared with Basic Grants and Concentration Grants, because of the additional provisions in the Targeted Grant formula. Similar to the other grants, Targeted Grant 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. For Targeted Grants—and for Education Finance Incentive Grants (EFIG)—the number and percentage weighing provisions were retained. Therefore, in contrast to the patterns for Basic Grants and Concentration Grants, substantial variations existed for allocations based only on the formula-eligibility criteria. 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. Excluding the state minimum provision meant that small population states typically received lower allocations since there was no minimum threshold on funding levels.

The hold harmless provision limits the amount a district’s allocation can decrease 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 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 hold harmless provision moderates 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 are fully met for a district. 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.

The number weighting and percentage weighting provisions are unique to Targeted Grants and EFIG. When the number weighting provision was removed, districts only received additional funding if they had high percentages of formula-eligible children, which favored the highest poverty districts, regardless of size. When the percentage weighting provision was removed, the allocations were based only on the actual number of formula-eligible children, which favored larger districts regardless of poverty level. Three combinations of provision removals are analyzed in this chapter, all including removal of the hold harmless provision. One combination looks at removal of the hold harmless and number weighting provisions, which provides an example of the long-term impact of removing the number weighting provision by not limiting the annual reductions. Another combination looks at removal of the SPPE, hold harmless, and number weighting provisions, and the third combination looks at removal of the state minimum, hold harmless, and number weighting provisions.

Top

Formula-Eligibility Criteria Only

The formula-eligibility criteria for Targeted Grants (as well as for Education Finance Incentive Grants) retained the number weighting and percentage weighting provisions. Thus, when only the formula-eligibility criteria were considered in the allocation computations, the differences between the highest and lowest Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child across most school district characteristics remained relatively large compared with the smaller differences for Basic Grants and Concentration Grants. The exception to the relatively wide ranges in Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child when only the formula-eligibility criteria were considered was for the state-level allocations, when the range was narrower than the range for the final allocations. The allocations ranged from $165 in Vermont and $170 in Maine to $408 in Nevada, a range between the lowest and the highest of $243 or 147 percent (table 6.A). The narrowness of this range, when compared with the final allocation range ($481 or 245 percent), was primarily due to lower allocations for states at the top of the range. For example, when only the formula-eligibility criteria were considered, the allocations were $511 lower in Vermont and $477 lower in Wyoming, compared with the final allocations. Overall, 30 states and the District of Columbia had decreases in their allocations compared with the final allocations, while 20 states and Puerto Rico had increases.

When only the formula-eligibility criteria were considered, large cities received a higher Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ($394) than all other locales, which ranged from $173 for remote rural areas to $308 for midsize cities (table 6.B; figure 6.1). The difference between the allocations for large cities and remote rural areas was $221 or 128 percent, which was larger than the difference for the final allocations ($159 or 73 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when only the formula-eligibility criteria were considered, midsize cities had the largest increase (+$24), and remote rural areas had the largest decrease (-$117).

---

Figure 6.1. Title I, Part A Targeted 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 Targeted Grants are provided to districts in which the number of formula-eligible children (without the application of the formula weights) is at least 10 and that number constitutes at least 5 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, the highest poverty quarter received the highest Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ($315), which was $22 lower than the final allocation. Districts with lower poverty rates had lower allocations. For example, when only the formula-eligibility criteria were considered, the allocation was lowest for the lowest poverty quarter ($210), which was $8 lower than the final allocation. The Targeted Grant allocation for the highest poverty quarter was $105 or 50 percent higher than the allocation for the lowest poverty quarter.

Similar to the final allocations, when only the formula-eligibility criteria were considered, the largest districts in the highest poverty quarter had a higher Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ($418) than districts in all other poverty quarters and of all other population sizes, which ranged from $165 for the smallest districts in the lowest poverty quarter and the smallest districts in the second-lowest population quarter to $405 for the largest districts in the second-highest poverty quarter. Within the highest poverty quarter, the largest districts had a Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child of $418, compared with an allocation $191 for the smallest districts in that quarter (a range of $227 or 118 percent). This range ($227) between the largest and smallest districts was more than twice as wide as the range for the final allocations ($112). Compared with the final allocations, applying only the formula-eligibility criteria resulted in the largest increase (+$71) for the largest districts in the second-highest poverty quarter and the largest decrease (-$103) for the smallest districts in the highest poverty quarter.

When only the formula-eligibility criteria were considered, districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of 25,000 or more (the largest districts) had a higher Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ($368) than districts of other population sizes. The lowest allocations were for districts with a population of less than 300 and districts with a population of 300 to 599 (both $165). This pattern contrasts with the pattern for the final allocations, where districts with a population of less than 300 had the second-highest allocation. The difference in the Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the district population sizes with the highest and lowest allocations was $203, which was about twice the difference for the final allocations ($103). Compared with the final allocations, using only the formula-eligibility criteria resulted in the largest increase (+$36) for districts with a population of 25,000 or more and the largest decrease (-$158) for districts with a population of less than 300. Districts with a population of 300 to 599 had a decrease of $100 in their Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child, and districts with a population of 600 to 999 had a decrease of $86.

Top

Removal of State per Pupil Expenditure (SPPE)

When the state per pupil expenditure (SPPE) provision was removed from the formula, the Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child tended to increase in lower-spending states and decrease 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 Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child were in Florida and Nevada (both +$27), and the largest decreases were in Massachusetts (-$49) and New Jersey (-$43) (table 6.A). The allocations ranged from $184 in Iowa and $199 in Idaho to $659 in Wyoming and $676 in Vermont, a difference between the lowest and the highest of $493 or 268 percent. This range was larger than the range for the final allocations ($481 or 245 percent). Overall, 21 states had decreases in their allocations compared with the final allocations, while 29 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico had no changes or increases.

When the SPPE provision was removed from the formula, large cities ($381) received a higher Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child than all other locales, which ranged from $214 for fringe towns to $291 for remote rural areas (table 6.B; figure 6.2). The difference between the allocations for large cities and fringe towns was $167 or 78 percent, which was similar to the difference for the final allocations ($159 or 73 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the SPPE provision was removed, the differences in the Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child by locale were relatively small, with no differences over $7.

---

Figure 6.2. Title I, Part A Targeted 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 highest poverty quarter received the highest Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ($337). Districts with lower poverty rates had lower allocations. For example, the allocation was lowest for the lowest poverty quarter ($204). The allocation for the highest poverty quarter was $132 or 65 percent higher than the allocation for the lowest poverty quarter, which was larger than the difference for the final allocations ($119 or 54 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the SPPE provision was removed, the Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child was $14 lower for the lowest poverty quarter and $1 lower for the second-lowest poverty quarter; in contrast, there was an increase of $5 for the second-highest poverty quarter and an increase of less than $1 for the highest poverty quarter.

Similar to the pattern for the final allocations, when the SPPE provision was removed from the formula, the largest districts within each poverty quarter had higher Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child than smaller districts. The largest districts in the highest poverty quarter had a higher allocation ($408) than districts in all other poverty quarters and of all other population sizes, which ranged from $160 for the second-smallest districts in the lowest poverty quarter to $352 for the largest districts in second-highest poverty quarter. Within the highest poverty quarter, the largest districts had a Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child of $408, compared with an allocation of $295 for the smallest districts in that quarter (a range of $114 or 39 percent). This range ($114) between the largest and smallest districts in the highest poverty quarter was similar to the range for the final allocations ($112 or 38 percent). Compared with the final allocations, removal of the SPPE provision resulted in the largest increase (+$18) for the largest districts in the second-highest poverty quarter and the largest decrease (-$18) for the second-smallest districts in the lowest poverty quarter.

Similar to the pattern for the final allocations, when the SPPE provision was removed from the formula, the Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child for districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of 25,000 or more (the largest districts) was higher than for districts of other population sizes. In contrast to the pattern when only the formula-eligibility criteria were considered but similar to the pattern for the final allocations, both districts with the largest and districts with the smallest population sizes had the highest Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child. The highest allocation was for districts with a population of 25,000 or more ($338), but the second-highest allocation was for districts with a population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) ($321). The lowest allocation was for districts with a population of 5,000 to 9,999 ($223). The difference in the allocations between the district population sizes with the highest and lowest allocations was $115, which was larger than the difference for the final allocations ($103). Compared with the final allocations, removal of the SPPE provision resulted in lower Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child for smaller districts (ranging from -$2 to -$7) and a higher allocation for districts with a population of 25,000 or more (+$6).

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 Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child increased slightly for many states but decreased substantially for many of the states receiving state minimum allocation. 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.

Removal of the state minimum provision from the formula had an impact of less than $3 per formula-eligible child for the majority of states, but it reduced the Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child by more than $50 in 5 of the 13 states that received the state minimum allocation (table 6.A). For example, when the state minimum provision was removed, North Dakota’s allocation decreased by $89, Wyoming’s decreased by $80, Vermont’s decreased by $80, South Dakota’s decreased by $60, and Alaska’s decreased by $59. The Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child ranged from $188 in Idaho to $597 in Vermont, a difference of $409 or 218 percent. This difference was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($481 or 245 percent). Overall, 12 states and the District of Columbia had decreases in their allocations compared with the final allocations, while 38 states and Puerto Rico had no changes or increases.

Similar to the final allocations, when the state minimum provision was removed from the formula, large cities received a higher Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ($378) than all other locales, which ranged from $218 for fringe towns and $219 for rural fringe areas to $285 for remote rural areas (table 6.B; figure 6.3). The difference between the allocation for large cities and fringe towns was $160 or 74 percent, which was similar to the difference for the final allocations ($159 or 73 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the state minimum provision was removed, remote rural areas had the largest decrease (-$6) and remote towns had the second-largest decrease (-$3); in contrast, large cities had the largest increase (+$1).

---

Figure 6.3. Title I, Part A Targeted 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 highest poverty quarter received the highest Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ($337). Districts with lower poverty rates had lower allocations. For example, the allocation was lowest for the lowest poverty quarter ($215). Compared with the final allocations, when the state minimum provision was removed, the Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child was $2 lower for the lowest poverty quarter and $1 lower for the second-lowest poverty quarter; in contrast, there was an increase of $1 for the highest poverty quarter and an increase of less than $1 for the second-highest poverty quarter. When the state minimum provision was removed, the difference between the Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child for the highest poverty quarter ($337) and lowest poverty quarter ($215) was $122 or 56 percent, which was similar to the difference for the final allocations ($119 or 54 percent).

Similar to the final allocations, when the state minimum provision was removed from the formula, the largest districts within each poverty quarter had higher Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child than smaller districts. The largest districts in the highest poverty quarter had a higher allocation ($407) than districts in all other poverty quarters and of all other population sizes, which ranged from $177 in the second-smallest districts in the lowest poverty quarter to $348 in the second-largest districts in the highest poverty quarter. Within the highest poverty quarter, the largest districts had an allocation of $407, compared with an allocation of $294 in the smallest districts in that quarter (a range of $113 or 38 percent). This range ($113) between the largest and smallest districts in the highest poverty quarter was about the same as the range for the final allocations ($112) but narrower than the range when only the formula-eligibility criteria were considered ($227). Compared with the final allocations, removal of the state minimum provision resulted in the largest increase (+$2) for the largest districts in the second-highest poverty quarter and the largest decrease (-$5) for the smallest districts in the lowest poverty quarter.

After removal of the state minimum provision from the formula, the highest Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child was for districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of 25,000 or more (the largest districts) ($333), but the second-highest allocation was for districts with a population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) ($312). In contrast to the pattern when only the formula-eligibility criteria were considered but similar to the pattern for the final allocations, both districts with the largest and districts with the smallest population sizes had the highest allocations. Similar to the final allocations, when the state minimum provision was removed, the lowest Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child was for districts with a population of 5,000 to 9,999 ($228). After removal of the state minimum provision, the difference in the Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the district population sizes with the highest and lowest allocations was $104, which was similar to the difference for the final allocations ($103). Compared with the final allocations, removal of the state minimum provision resulted in the largest decreases for districts with a population of less than 300 (-$11) and districts with a population of 300 to 599 (-$4). The only increase was for districts with a population of 25,000 or more (+$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 Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child ranged from $196 in Idaho and $203 in Iowa to $659 in Wyoming and $676 in Vermont, a difference between the lowest and the highest of $481 or 245 percent (table 6.A). This range was the same as the range for the final allocations because the states at the bottom and top of the range were not substantially impacted by the hold harmless provision. Compared with the final allocations, when the hold harmless provision was removed, the largest increases in the Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child were in Maryland and New Jersey (both +$11), and the largest decreases were in Puerto Rico (-$37) and Michigan (-$32). Overall, 22 states and Puerto Rico had decreases in their allocations compared with the final allocations, while 28 states and the District of Columbia had no changes or increases.

Similar to the final allocations and allocations with other provisions removed, when the hold harmless provision was removed from the formula, large cities received a higher Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ($381) than all other locales, which ranged from $216 for fringe towns to $289 for midsize cities (table 6.B; figure 6.4). The difference between the allocations for large cities and fringe towns was $165 or 76 percent, which was similar to the difference for the final allocations ($159 or 73 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the hold harmless provision was removed, remote rural areas had the largest decrease (-$19) and distant rural areas had the second-largest decrease (-$8); in contrast, midsize cities had the largest increase (+$6).

---

Figure 6.4. Title I, Part A Targeted 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 highest poverty quarter received the highest Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ($331). Districts with lower poverty rates had lower allocations. For example, the allocation was lowest for the lowest poverty quarter ($224). Compared with the final allocations, when the hold harmless provision was removed, there was an increase of $6 in the Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child for the lowest poverty quarter, an increase of $3 for the second-lowest poverty quarter, and an increase of $5 for the second-highest poverty quarter. In contrast, there was a decrease of $6 for the highest poverty quarter. When the hold harmless provision was removed, the difference between the Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child for the highest poverty quarter ($331) and the lowest poverty quarter ($224) was $107 or 48 percent, which was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($119 or 54 percent).

Similar to the final allocations, when the hold harmless provision was removed from the formula, the largest districts within each poverty quarter had higher Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child than smaller districts. The largest districts in the highest poverty quarter had a higher allocation ($407) than districts in all other poverty quarters and of all other population sizes, which ranged from $184 for the second-smallest districts in the lowest poverty quarter to $346 for the second-largest districts in the highest poverty quarter. Within the highest poverty quarter, the largest districts had a Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child of $407, compared with an allocation of $277 for the smallest districts in that quarter (a range of $129 or 47 percent). This range ($129) between the largest and smallest districts in the highest poverty quarter was larger than the range for the final allocations ($112) but narrower than the range when only the formula-eligibility criteria were considered ($227). Compared with the final allocations, removal of the hold harmless provision resulted in the largest increase (+$11) for the largest districts in the second-highest poverty quarter and the largest decrease (-$17) for the smallest districts in the highest poverty quarter.

After removal of the hold harmless provision from the formula, the highest Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child was for districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of 25,000 or more (the largest districts) ($336), but the second-highest allocation was for districts with a population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) ($276). In contrast to the pattern when only the formula-eligibility criteria were considered but similar to the pattern for the final allocations, both districts with the largest and districts with the smallest population sizes had the highest Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child. Similar to the final allocations, the lowest allocation was for districts with a population of 5,000 to 9,999 ($227). The difference in the Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the district population sizes with the highest and lowest allocations was $109, which was larger than the difference for the final allocations ($103). Compared with the final allocations, removal of the hold harmless provision resulted in lower allocations for districts with populations under 10,000 and an increase of $4 for districts with a population of 25,000 or more. The largest decreases in Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child were for districts with a population of less than 300 (-$48), districts with a population of 300 to 599 (-$20), and districts with a population of 600 to 999 (-$17).

Top

Removal of Number Weighting

Removal of the number weighting provision from the formula decreased the Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child for larger school districts, compared with the final allocations, since some large but low-poverty districts benefited from the number weighting 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 number weighting provision was not fully reflected in this analysis. The hold harmless provision moderated the long-term impact of removing the number weighting 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 number weighting provision from the formula, the Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child ranged from $196 in Idaho and $200 in Utah to $659 in Wyoming and $676 in Vermont, a difference between the lowest and the highest of $481 or 245 percent (table 6.A). This range was the same as the range for the final allocations and allocations with some other provisions removed because the states at the bottom and top of the range were not substantially impacted by the number weighting provision. Compared with the final allocations, when the number weighting provision was removed, the largest increases in the Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child were in New Jersey (+$25) and Mississippi (+$21), and the largest decreases were in Maryland (-$36) and Nevada (-$34). Overall, 21 states had decreases in their allocations compared with the final allocations, while 29 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico had no changes or increases.

Similar to the final allocations and allocations with other single provisions removed, when the number weighting provision was removed from the formula, large cities received a higher Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ($362) than all other locales, which ranged from $233 for fringe rural areas and $235 for small suburban areas to $313 for remote rural areas (table 6.B; figure 6.5). The difference between the allocations for large cities and fringe rural areas was $129 or 55 percent, which was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($159 or 73 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the number weighting provision was removed, large cities had the largest decrease (-$15); in contrast, remote rural areas had the largest increase (+$22).

---

Figure 6.5. Title I, Part A Targeted Grant final allocation per formula-eligible child and allocation with number weighting 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 number weighting provision was removed from the formula, the highest poverty quarter received the highest Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ($344). Districts with lower poverty rates had lower allocations. For example, the allocation was lowest for the lowest poverty quarter ($214) and second-lowest for the second-lowest poverty quarter ($219). Compared with the final allocations, when the number weighting provision was removed, there was an increase of $8 in the Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child for the highest poverty quarter; in contrast, there were decreases of $4 to $7 for districts in lower poverty quarters. When the number weighting provision was removed, the difference between the allocations for the highest poverty quarter ($344) and the lowest poverty quarter ($214) was $130 or 61 percent, which was larger than the difference for the final allocations ($119 or 54 percent).

Similar to the final allocations, when the number weighting provision was removed from the formula, the largest districts within each poverty quarter had higher Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child than smaller districts. The largest districts in the highest poverty quarter had a higher Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ($390) than districts in all other poverty quarters and of all other population sizes, which ranged from $195 for both the second-smallest districts in the second-lowest poverty quarter and the second-largest districts in the lowest poverty quarter to $346 for the second-largest districts in the highest poverty quarter. Within the highest poverty quarter, the largest districts had a Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child of $390, compared with an allocation of $319 for the smallest districts in that quarter (a range of $71 or 22 percent). This range ($71) between the largest and smallest districts in the highest poverty quarter was narrower than the range for the final allocations ($112) and allocations with any other single provision removed. Compared with the final allocations, removal of the number weighting provision resulted in the largest increases (both +$25) for the second-smallest districts and smallest districts in the highest poverty quarter and the largest decrease (-$39) for the largest districts in the lowest poverty quarter.

After removal of the number weighting provision from the formula, the highest Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child was for districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) ($339), and the second-highest allocation was for districts with a population of 25,000 or more (the largest districts) ($314). Removal of the number weighting provision was the one exception to the general pattern of the largest districts having the highest Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child when removing a single provision. Similar to the final allocations, when the number weighting provision was removed, the lowest allocation was for districts with a population of 5,000 to 9,999 ($247). The difference in the Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the district population sizes with the highest and lowest allocations was $92, which was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($103).

Removal of the number weighting provision from the formula resulted in higher Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child for smaller districts and a decrease of $18 for districts with a population of 25,000 or more. For districts with populations under 10,000, the allocations with the removal of the number weighting provision were between $16 and $23 higher than the final allocations. Compared with the final allocations, removal of the number weighting provision resulted in the largest increase (both +$23) for districts with a population of 1,000 to 2,499 and districts with a population of 2,500 to 4,999 and the largest decrease (-$18) for districts with a population of 25,000 or more.

Top

Removal of Percentage Weighting

Removal of the percentage weighting provision tended to reduce allocations for school districts with relatively large percentages of formula-eligible children and tended to increase allocations for large low-poverty districts, which may have received higher allocations due to the number weighting 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 percentage weighting provision was not fully reflected in this analysis. The hold harmless provision moderated the long-term impact of removing the percentage weighting 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 percentage weighting provision from the formula, the Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child ranged from $196 in Idaho and $198 in Iowa to $659 in Wyoming and $676 in Vermont, a difference between the lowest and the highest of $481 or 245 percent (table 6.A). This range was the same as the range for the final allocations and allocations with some other provisions removed because the states at the bottom and top of the range were not substantially impacted by the percentage weighting provision. Compared with the final allocations, when the percentage weighting provision was removed, the largest increases in the Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child were in Maryland and Nevada (both +$8) and the largest decreases were in Mississippi (-$15) and New Jersey (-$11). Overall, 28 states had decreases in their allocations compared with the final allocations, while 22 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico had no changes or increases.

Similar to the final allocation and allocations with other provisions removed, when the percentage weighting provision was removed from the formula, large cities received a higher Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ($385) than all other locales, which ranged from $211 for fringe towns to $286 for midsize cities (table 6.B; figure 6.6). The difference between the allocations for large cities and fringe towns was $174 or 82 percent, which was larger than the difference for the final allocations ($159 or 73 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the percentage weighting provision was removed, large cities had the largest increase (+$8); in contrast, remote rural areas had the largest decrease (-$15).

---

Figure 6.6. Title I, Part A Targeted Grant final allocation per formula-eligible child and allocation with percentage weighting 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 percentage weighting provision was removed from the formula, the highest poverty quarter received the highest Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ($332). Districts with lower poverty rates had lower allocations. For example, the allocation was lowest for the lowest poverty quarter ($224) and second-lowest for the second-lowest poverty quarter ($231). Compared with the final allocations, when the percentage weighting provision was removed, there was a decrease of $4 in the Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child for the highest poverty quarter; in contrast, there were increases of $1 to $7 for the lower poverty quarters. When the percentage weighting provision was removed, the difference between the Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child for the highest poverty quarter ($332) and the lowest poverty quarter ($224) was $108 or 48 percent, which was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($119 or 54 percent).

Similar to the final allocations, when the percentage weighting provision was removed from the formula, the largest districts within each poverty quarter had higher Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child than smaller districts. The largest districts in the highest poverty quarter had a higher allocation ($414) than districts in all other poverty quarters and of all other population sizes, which ranged from $184 for the second-smallest districts in the lowest poverty quarter to $353 for the second-largest districts in the highest poverty quarter. Within the highest poverty quarter, the largest districts had a Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child of $414, compared with an allocation of $272 for the smallest districts in that quarter (a range of $142 or 52 percent). This range ($142) between the largest and smallest districts in the highest poverty quarter was larger than the range for the final allocations ($112) and the allocations for any of the other formula alternatives, except for when only the formula-eligibility criteria were considered ($227). Compared with the final allocations, removal of the percentage weighting provision resulted in the largest increase (+$10) for the largest districts in the second-highest poverty quarter and the largest decrease (-$22) for the smallest districts in the highest poverty quarter.

After removal of the percentage weighting provision from the formula, the highest Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child was for districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of 25,000 or more (the largest districts) ($340), but the second-highest allocation was for districts with a population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) ($307). The lowest allocation was for districts with a population of 2,500 to 4,999 ($222), and the allocations for districts with a population of 5,000 to 9,999 ($223) and districts with a population of 1,000 to 2,499 ($224) were slightly higher. The difference in the Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the district population sizes with the highest and lowest allocations was $118, which was larger than the difference for the final allocations ($103). Compared with the final allocations, removal of the percentage weighting provision resulted in the largest increase (+$8) for districts with a population of 25,000 or more and the largest decrease (-$16) for districts with a population of less than 300.

Top

Removal of Hold Harmless and Number Weighting

Removal of multiple formula provisions can lead to a better understanding of the interaction between those provisions and enable a more complete analysis of the implications of individual provisions. In particular, removal of both hold harmless and number weighting provisions in combination provides information on the long-term impact of removing the number weighting provision. Removing the number weighting 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 number weighting provision resulted in a decrease in the Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child for large districts because some large but low-poverty districts received additional funding due to the number weighting provision.

After removal of the hold harmless and number weighting provisions from the formula in combination, the Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child ranged from a low of $182 in Utah to a high of $659 in Wyoming and $676 in Vermont, a difference between the lowest and the highest of $495 or 272 percent (table 6.A). This range was wider than the range for the final allocation and allocations with some other provisions removed because of the decrease for Utah, which was already lower than the national average. Compared with the final allocations, the largest increases in the Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child after removal of the hold harmless and number weighting provisions were in New Jersey (+$65) and Ohio (+$48), and the largest decreases were in Nevada (-$123) and Maryland (-$90). Overall, 19 states had decreases in their allocations compared with the final allocations, while 31 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico had no changes or increases.

When the hold harmless and number weighting provisions were removed from the formula in combination, remote rural areas ($327) received a Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child that was nearly as high as the allocation for large cities ($328) (table 6.B; figure 6.7); this pattern contrasted with the pattern for the final allocations and allocations with single provisions removed. The allocations for other locales ranged from $250 for large suburban areas to $295 for midsize cities and small cities. The difference between the allocation for large cities and large suburban areas was $77 or 31 percent, which was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($159 or 73 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the hold harmless and number weighting provisions were removed, the largest increases were for fringe towns and remote towns (both +$45), and the largest decrease was for large cities (-$50).

---

Figure 6.7. Title I, Part A Targeted Grant final allocation per formula-eligible child and allocation with hold harmless and number weighting provisions 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.

---

Large cities (or midsize cities in states where large cities were not applicable) received higher Targeted Grant final allocations per formula-eligible child than all other locales in 35 states (table 2.D); when the hold harmless and number weighting provisions were removed from the formula in combination, large cities (or midsize cities where large cities were not applicable) received higher allocations than all other locales in only 13 states (table 6.C). After removing the hold harmless and number weighting provisions, remote rural areas had higher allocations than all other locales in 9 states, and there was only one state each where large and midsize suburban areas and fringe towns had the highest allocations. For example, only in Idaho did midsize suburban areas have a higher allocation ($235) than all other locales within the state. The states with the smallest ranges in Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child among the locales were Iowa and Utah (both $50), while the states with the largest ranges among the locales were New York ($285) and Michigan ($274) (figure 6.8).

---

Figure 6.8. Title I, Part A Targeted 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 weighting provisions, by state or jurisdiction: 2015

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.

---

When the hold harmless and number weighting provisions were removed from the formula in combination, the highest poverty quarter received the highest Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ($352) (table 6.B; figure 6.7). Districts with lower poverty rates had lower allocations. For example, the allocation was lowest for the second-lowest poverty quarter ($208) and second lowest for the lowest poverty quarter ($221). Compared with the final allocations, when the hold harmless and number weighting provisions were removed, there were increases in the Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child for the highest poverty quarter (+$15) and for the lowest poverty quarter (+$3); in contrast, there were decreases for the second-lowest poverty quarter (-$18) and the second-highest poverty quarter (-$12). When the hold harmless and number weighting provisions were removed, the difference between the Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child for the highest poverty quarter ($352) and the second-lowest poverty quarter ($208) was $144 or 69 percent, which was larger than the difference for the final allocations ($119 or 54 percent).

In the final allocations, when the hold harmless and number weighting provisions were removed from the formula in combination, the largest districts within each poverty quarter had higher Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child than smaller districts. However, when the hold harmless and number weighting provisions were removed, the largest districts within each poverty quarter no longer had higher allocations than smaller districts. For example, the largest districts in the highest poverty quarter had a lower allocation ($353) than districts of some smaller population sizes in that quarter. Within the highest poverty quarter, the second-largest districts had a Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child of $358, compared with an allocation of $342 in the smallest districts in that quarter (a range of $16 or 5 percent). This range ($16) between the second-largest and smallest districts in the highest poverty quarter was smaller than the range for the final allocations ($112). Compared with the final allocations, removal of the number weighting and hold harmless provisions resulted in the largest increase (+$57) in the Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child for the second-smallest districts in the highest poverty quarter; in contrast the largest decreases were for the largest districts in the second-highest poverty quarter (-$103) and the largest districts in the second-lowest poverty quarter (-$99).

After removal of the hold harmless and number weighting provisions from the formula in combination, the highest Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child were for districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of 300 or less (the smallest districts) ($321) and districts with a population of 300 to 599 ($294). The lowest allocations were for districts with a population of 10,000 to 24,999 ($272) and districts with a population of 5,000 to 9,999 ($273). The difference in the Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the district population sizes with the highest and lowest allocations was $48, which was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($103). Compared with the final allocations, removal of the hold harmless and number weighting provisions resulted in the largest increase (+$48) for districts with a population of 2,500 to 4,999 and the largest decrease (-$45) for districts with a population of 25,000 or more.

Top

Removal of State per Pupil Expenditure (SPPE), Hold Harmless, and Number Weighting

Removal of multiple provisions produced patterns that differed from those for the final allocations or allocations with single provisions removed. Removal of the number weighting provision had a greater negative impact on larger school districts than on smaller districts since some large but low-poverty districts benefited from the number weighting provision. When the state per pupil expenditure (SPPE) provision was removed, the Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child generally increased in lower-spending states and decreased in higher-spending states. Removing the hold harmless provision in conjunction with the SPPE and number weighting provisions provided information on the long-term impact of removing these two provisions, since the reductions in the district-level allocations were no longer limited to 15 percent.

When the SPPE, hold harmless, and number weighting provisions were removed from the formula in combination, the Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child ranged from $209 in Utah to $676 in Vermont, a difference of $468 or 224 percent (table 6.A). This difference was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($481 or 245 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the SPPE, hold harmless, and number weighting provisions were removed, the largest increases were in Mississippi (+$91) and Puerto Rico (+$66), and the largest decreases were in Maryland (-$156) and New York (-$121). Overall, 22 states had decreases in their allocations compared with the final allocations, while 28 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico had no changes or increases.

When the SPPE, hold harmless, and number weighting provisions were removed from the formula in combination, remote rural areas received a higher Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ($339) than all other locales, which ranged from $249 for small suburban areas and $253 for large suburban areas to $316 for large cities (table 6.B; figure 6.9); this pattern contrasted with the pattern for the final allocations and allocations with single provisions removed. The difference between the allocations for remote rural areas and small suburban areas was $90 or 36 percent, which was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($159 or 73 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the SPPE, hold harmless, and number weighting provisions were removed, the largest increase was for remote towns (+$61), and the largest decrease was for large cities (-$61).

---

Figure 6.9. Title I, Part A Targeted Grant final allocation per formula-eligible child and allocation with state per pupil expenditure (SPPE), hold harmless, and number weighting provisions 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 SPPE, hold harmless, and number weighting provisions were removed from the formula in combination, the highest poverty quarter received the highest Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ($350). Districts with lower poverty rates had lower allocations. For example, the allocation was lowest for the lowest poverty quarter ($204) and second lowest for the second-lowest poverty quarter ($208). Compared with the final allocations, when the SPPE, hold harmless, and number weighting provisions were removed, there was an increase (+$13) in the Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child for the highest poverty quarter; in contrast, there were decreases for the second-lowest poverty quarter (-$18), the lowest poverty quarter (-$14), and the second-highest poverty quarter (-$4). When the SPPE, hold harmless, and number weighting provisions were removed, the difference between the Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child for the highest poverty quarter ($350) and the lowest poverty quarter ($204) was $146 or 72 percent, which was larger than the difference for the final allocations ($119 or 54 percent).

When the SPPE, hold harmless, and number weighting provisions were removed from the formula in combination, the largest districts within each poverty quarter did not consistently have higher Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child than smaller districts; for the final allocations, the largest districts did consistently have higher allocations than smaller districts. For example, the largest districts in the highest poverty quarter had a lower allocation ($338) than smaller districts in that quarter, which ranged from $353 in the second-smallest districts to $355 in the second-largest districts. The range ($16) between the districts with the highest and lowest allocations was smaller than the range for the final allocations ($112). Compared with the final allocations, removal of the SPPE, hold harmless, and number weighting provisions resulted in the largest increase (+$60) for the smallest districts in the highest poverty quarter and the largest decreases (both -$83) for the largest districts in the second-highest poverty quarter and the largest districts in the second-lowest poverty quarter. The largest districts in the lowest poverty quarter also had a relatively large decrease (-$75).

After removal of the SPPE, hold harmless, and number weighting provisions from the formula in combination, the highest Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child was for districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) ($325), and the second-highest allocation was for districts with a population of 300 to 599 ($291). The lowest allocation was for districts with a population of 5,000 to 9,999 ($269). The difference in the Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the districts with the highest and lowest allocations was $56, which was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($103). Compared with the final allocations, removal of the SPPE, hold harmless, and number weighting provisions resulted in the largest increase (+$44) for districts with a population of 2,500 to 4,999 and the largest decrease (-$41) for districts with a population of 25,000 or more (the largest districts).

Top

Removal of State Minimum, Hold Harmless, and Number Weighting

Removal of multiple provisions produced patterns that differed from those for the final allocations or allocations with single provisions removed. Removal of the number weighting provision had a greater negative impact on larger school districts than on smaller districts, since some large but low-poverty districts benefited from the number weighting provision. When the state minimum, hold harmless, and number weighting provisions were removed from the formula in combination, the Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child increased in many states and decreased in many of the state minimum states. Removal of the hold harmless provision in conjunction with the state minimum and number weighting provisions provided information on the long-term impact of removing these two provisions since the reductions in the district-level allocations were no longer limited to 15 percent.

Removal of the state minimum, hold harmless, and number weighting provisions from the formula in combination increased the Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child for 28 states and Puerto Rico, but it decreased the allocations by more than $100 in 7 of the 13 states that received the state minimum allocation (table 6.A). For example, North Dakota’s allocation decreased by $405, Wyoming’s decreased by $404, and Vermont’s decreased by $385. After removal of the state minimum, hold harmless, and number weighting provisions, the Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child ranged from $184 in Utah to $418 in the District of Columbia, a difference of $234 or 127 percent. This difference was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($481 or 245 percent) or for allocations with any other provisions removed.

Similar to the final allocations and allocations with single provisions removed, when the state minimum, hold harmless, and number weighting provisions were removed from the formula in combination, large cities received a higher Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ($330) than all other locales, which ranged from $252 for small suburban areas and $253 for large suburban areas to $297 for midsize cities (table 6.B; figure 6.10). The difference between the Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child for large cities and small suburban areas was $78 or 31 percent, which was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($159 or 73 percent). Compared with the final allocations, when the state minimum, hold harmless, and number weighting provisions were removed, the largest increases were for distant towns (+$44) and fringe towns (+$43), and the largest decrease was for large cities (-$47).

---

Figure 6.10. Title I, Part A Targeted Grant final allocation per formula-eligible child and allocation with state minimum, hold harmless, and number weighting provisions 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, hold harmless, and number weighting provisions were removed from the formula in combination, the highest poverty quarter received the highest Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ($355). Districts with lower poverty rates had lower allocations. For example, the allocation was lowest for the second-lowest poverty quarter ($205) and second lowest for the lowest poverty quarter ($210). Compared with the final allocations, when the state minimum, hold harmless, and number weighting provisions were removed, there was an increase in the Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child for the highest poverty quarter (+$19); in contrast, there were decreases for the second-lowest poverty quarter (-$22), the second-highest poverty quarter (-$11), and the lowest poverty quarter (-$8). When the state minimum, hold harmless, and number weighting provisions were removed, the difference between the Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child for the highest poverty quarter ($355) and the second-lowest poverty quarter ($205) was $150 or 74 percent, which was larger than the difference for the final allocations ($119 or 54 percent).

When the state minimum, hold harmless, and number weighting provisions were removed from the formula in combination, the largest districts within each poverty quarter did not consistently have higher Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child than smaller districts, which contrasted with the consistent pattern for the final allocations. Within the highest poverty quarter, the second-largest districts had a Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child of $362, compared with an allocation of $358 for the largest districts and an allocation of $341 for the smallest districts (a range of $21 or 6 percent). This range ($21) between the districts with the highest and lowest allocations was smaller than the range for the final allocations ($112). Compared with the final allocations, removal of the state minimum, hold harmless, and number weighting provisions resulted in the largest increase in the Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child (+$62) for the second-smallest districts in the highest poverty quarter and the largest decrease (-$100) for the largest districts in the second-highest poverty quarter. There were also relatively large decreases for the largest districts in the other poverty quarters, ranging from -$48 in in the highest poverty quarter to -$96 in the second-lowest poverty quarter.

After removal of the state minimum, hold harmless, and number weighting provisions from the formula in combination, the highest Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child was for districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of 25,000 or more (the largest districts) ($290), and the second-highest allocation was for districts with a population of 1,000 to 2,499 ($281). Districts of other population sizes had allocations that ranged from $272 for districts with a population of 300 to 599 to $280 for districts with a population of 2,500 to 4,999. The difference in the Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the districts with the highest and lowest allocations was $18, which was smaller than the difference for the final allocations ($103) or allocations with any other provisions removed. Compared with the final allocations, removal of the state minimum, hold harmless, and number weighting provisions resulted in the largest increase (+$46) for districts with a population of 2,500 to 4,999 and the largest decreases for districts with a population of less than 300 (-$49) and districts with a population of 25,000 or more (-$42).

Top

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

When applying the American Community Survey-Comparable Wage Index (ACS-CWI), the FY 15 Targeted Grant final allocations per formula-eligible child ranged from $226 in Washington to $788 in Vermont (a difference of $562) (table 6.AA). This difference was larger than the difference without the cost adjustment ($481). This increase in the difference in the Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the states with the highest and lowest allocations when applying the ACS-CWI was also observed when various provisions were removed from the formula. For example, the cost-adjusted allocations when the state per pupil expenditure (SPPE), hold harmless, and number weighting provisions were removed in combination ranged from $211 in Maryland to $788 in Vermont (a difference of $577); without the cost adjustment, the difference was $468.

Applying the ACS-CWI resulted in lower Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child in high-cost areas, which generally reduced the allocations for large cities relative to other locales. As a result, most of the ranges in the Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between large cities and other locales were reduced. Large cities had the highest cost-adjusted Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child in all analyses involving the removal of a single provision, except for the removal of number weighting. For example, removal of the percentage weighting provision resulted in the highest cost-adjusted Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child for large cities ($372) and the lowest cost-adjusted allocation for fringe towns ($236) (table 6.BB). Similar to the allocation without the cost adjustment, removal of the number weighting provision resulted in the lowest cost-adjusted allocation for large cities ($350) among all single provision removals.

Removing multiple provisions from the formula in combination resulted in a significant pattern shift compared with the allocations without the ACS-CWI applied. When multiple provisions were removed, remote rural areas had the highest cost-adjusted Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child, while large suburban areas had the lowest cost-adjusted allocation. For example, when the SPPE, hold harmless, and number weighting provisions were removed in combination, the highest cost-adjusted allocation was for remote rural areas ($418), while the lowest cost-adjusted allocation was for large suburban areas ($257).

When the ACS-CWI was applied and the hold harmless and number weighting provisions were removed from the formula in combination, large cities (or midsize cities in states where large cities were not applicable) received the highest cost-adjusted Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child in 6 states (table 6.CC). Remote rural areas had a higher cost-adjusted Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child than all other locales in 19 states (compared with 9 states for the unadjusted allocations). There was only one state each in which large and midsize suburban areas had the highest cost-adjusted allocation within the state. There were no states for which fringe towns had the highest cost-adjusted allocation. After applying the ACS-CWI and removing the hold harmless and number weighting provisions, the states with the smallest differences in the Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child between the locales were Iowa and Wyoming (both $74), while the states with the largest differences were Alaska ($425) and South Dakota ($364).

The cost-adjusted Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child were higher than the unadjusted allocations for many smaller school districts because they were often in low-cost areas. For example, the cost-adjusted final allocations ranged from $251 for districts with a 5- to 17-year-old population of 5,000 to 9,999 to $389 for districts with a population of less than 300 (the smallest districts) (table 6.BB). When only the formula-eligibility criteria were considered or when only the hold harmless provision was removed, districts with a population of 25,000 or more (the largest districts) received the highest cost-adjusted Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child compared with other district population sizes. For example, when the hold harmless provision was removed, districts with a population of 25,000 or more received the highest cost-adjusted allocation ($337), while districts with a population of 5,000 to 9,999 received the lowest cost-adjusted allocation ($250). In all the other single provision removals, applying the ACS-CWI resulted in districts with a population of less than 300 having the highest Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child. For example, when the number weighting provision was removed, the highest cost-adjusted allocation ($408) was for districts with a population of less than 300. Removal of multiple provisions consistently resulted in districts with a population of less than 300 having the highest cost-adjusted Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child and districts with a population of 10,000 to 24,999 having the lowest cost-adjusted allocation. For example, after removing the SPPE, hold harmless, and number weighting provisions in combination, the cost-adjusted allocation for districts with a population of less 300 was $393, and the cost-adjusted allocation for districts with a population of 10,000 to 24,999 was $291.

Applying the ACS-CWI increased the relative value of Targeted Grant final allocations per formula-eligible child in low-cost areas and reduced some of the range in allocations. The cost-adjusted final allocation continued to be highest for the largest districts in the highest poverty quarter ($381) and lowest for the second-smallest districts in the lowest poverty quarter ($182); however, the range between the cost-adjusted allocations ($199) was smaller than the range for the unadjusted allocations ($228). When only the formula-eligibility criteria were considered, the highest cost-adjusted Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child was for the largest districts in the second-highest poverty quarter ($424), while the lowest cost-adjusted allocation continued to be for the second-smallest districts in the lowest poverty quarter ($171).

Another shift was observed in the cost-adjusted allocations with multiple provisions removed. The highest cost-adjusted Targeted Grant allocations per formula-eligible child were consistently for the smallest districts in the highest poverty quarter, while the lowest cost-adjusted allocations were for the largest districts in either the second-lowest poverty quarter or the lowest poverty quarter. For example, when the hold harmless and number weighting provisions were removed in combination, the smallest districts in the highest poverty quarter received the highest cost-adjusted Targeted Grant allocation per formula-eligible child ($400), while the largest districts in the second-lowest poverty quarter received the lowest cost-adjusted allocation ($188). When the SPPE, hold harmless, and number weighting provisions were removed in combination, the smallest districts in the highest poverty quarter received the highest cost-adjusted allocation ($416), while the largest districts in the lowest poverty quarter received the lowest cost-adjusted allocation ($200).

Top